Douglas County Shoreline Master Program – Shoreline ...douglassmp.com/_resources/pdfs/DouglasSMP_Limited...the ordinary high water mark Shade and Cover ; 75 feet . Limited more by

Memorandum March 4, 2019

1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, Washington 98101

206.287.9130

To: Douglas County Board of County Commissioners

From: John Small and Vivian Shin Erickson, Anchor QEA

cc: Mark Kulaas and Curtis Lillquist, Douglas County Transportation and Land Services

Re: Douglas County Shoreline Master Program – Shoreline Buffers Limited Amendment

Introduction Douglas County (County) adopted the County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) in 2009, with limited amendments adopted in 2015. In 2018 the County Transportation and Land Services Department convened a technical review of the best available science (BAS) pertaining to the County’s shoreline buffer functions and values, as well as the BAS regarding buffer widths and characteristics necessary to provide those functions in the context of the County’s semi-arid conditions. The findings of the review conducted by Grette Associates concluded that the SMP’s wetland buffers were supported by the BAS, but that the same analysis of the BAS supported 75-foot riparian buffers resulting in proposed SMP riparian buffer reductions between 25-feet to 100-feet.

There was sufficient scientific basis and precedent for amending the 2009 SMP to be administratively more efficient and effective while maintaining an ecologically sound framework that protects the existing shoreline functions and values. The BAS review and recommendations for potential SMP amendments are identified in Grette Associates’ Best Available Science Review for Riparian and Wetlands Areas in Douglas County (Technical Report; Grette Associates 2018).

Based on recommendations included in the Technical Report, the County plans to move forward with a limited SMP amendment process and modify the County’s shoreline buffer requirements. These modifications will ensure effective SMP implementation while maintaining protections adequate to support no net loss of shoreline functions and values. This memorandum describes the specific proposed amendments to Chapter 2 (Wetlands) and Chapter 3 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas) of the SMP’s Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations (Appendix H). Attachment A includes a redline draft of the SMP Appendix H Chapters 2 and 3, consistent with the amendments described in this memorandum.1

1 The SMP section reference numbers included in this memorandum are consistent with the existing section numbering in SMP

Appendix H and not with the updated section numbers resulting from proposed redlined amendments.

March 4, 2019 Page 2

Limited amendments are proposed to the SMP associated with:

1. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCA) riparian buffers 2. Structural setbacks 3. Mitigation and monitoring requirements

Summary of Technical Report Best Available Science Review and Recommendations Recommendations from the Technical Report are summarized in the following sections associated with the FWHCA riparian buffers and the wetland buffers.

Riparian Habitat Functions Best Available Science Review and Recommendations The Technical Report included a BAS review of the riparian habitat functions in the County in the context of the arid conditions of the Columbia Basin Plateau eco-region. The regional climate supports native riparian vegetation communities comprised mostly of shrubs and herbaceous species adapted to arid conditions. Based on the evaluation of the six riparian functions (summarized in Table 1), Grette Associates recommended that a “75-foot riparian buffer is adequate to support no net loss of riparian functions and values.” The Technical Report further concluded that a 75-foot buffer would also be consistent with Grant County’s SMP riparian buffers and provide consistent regulations along adjacent portions of the Columbia River. Grette Associates also recommended provisions be made for reduced buffers (especially applicable in areas of steep slopes where there is no riparian habitat). A 25% buffer width reduction could be allowed with the preparation of a habitat management and mitigation plan demonstrating that reduced buffers with enhancements will result in no net loss of ecological function.2

Table 1 Summary of Recommended Buffers for Douglas County Riparian Habitat Functions

Riparian Habitat Functions Recommended Buffer Notes

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Up to 75 feet Functional riparian habitat in Douglas County typically does not extend more than 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark

Shade and Cover 75 feet Limited more by native species height than buffer width

2 The County’s SMP currently allows for a buffer reduction up to 25% based on the County’s existing 2-zone buffer system. Grette

Associates recommends these provisions in SMP Appendix H, Section 3.050 (E) can remain substantively unchanged, even with the proposed buffer width amendments.


Riparian Habitat Functions Recommended Buffer Notes

Erosion Control 50 feet

Primarily associated with vegetation that is directly adjacent to the water body; role of vegetated buffer is minimized in steep slope areas along the Columbia River where potentially erosive water infiltrates due to typical coarse sand and cobble soils

Water Quality 65 to 70 feet adjacent to residential uses

Wider buffer may be necessary for land uses that generate higher levels of nutrients, pesticides, or pathogens

Organic Input 75 feet Riparian vegetation in County does not support large trees except for black cottonwood, which has an expected maximum height of 75 feet

Special Considerations of Anadromous Fisheries 65 to 70 feet

Vegetation beyond landward edge of riparian vegetation has limited influence on aquatic habitat (insect drop, leaf litter, and shade) due to height

Source: Grette Associates 2018

Wetland Functions Best Available Science Review and Recommendations The County’s SMP relies on the most recently amended Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington; therefore, the most recent 2014 rating system (Ecology Publication #14-06-030) is incorporated in the County’s SMP. As noted in the Technical Report, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) issued more recent guidance in 2016 (with modifications made in 2018), Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Eastern Washington Version (Ecology Publication #16-06-002), on wetland buffer widths based on habitat score and wetland category. The County’s SMP wetland buffers are currently based on land use intensity and wetland category, a system Ecology recommended in earlier guidance. Grette Associates found that “the current SMP wetland buffer widths are similar enough to Ecology’s [updated] buffer widths range as to represent a similar level of protection” and revisions to the wetland buffers widths are not required by BAS.

While the current range of wetland buffer widths in the SMP are similar to the range provided in Ecology’s 2016 guidance, Anchor QEA recommends that the County consider revising the SMP wetland provisions for consistency with the latest buffer approach based on habitat score. As noted in the Technical Report, the wetland buffer widths may remain substantively unchanged; however, this could be an opportunity for the County to maintain consistency between the Douglas County Code and Ecology’s latest direction and approach to determining science-based wetland buffer protections.

Proposed Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Based on Grette Associates’ BAS review, Grette Associates’ responses to specific BAS review questions provided by the County, and discussions between the authors of the memorandum and County planning staff, the following SMP Limited Amendments are proposed.


Proposed Riparian Buffer Shoreline Master Program Amendments Grette Associates concluded that riparian buffers currently defined in the SMP are wider than required to provide no net loss of habitat functions and values when considering the semi-arid climate within Douglas County and the naturally-occurring minimal width of native riparian vegetation along the County’s shorelines. The proposed amendments to the Douglas SMP include the following changes to jurisdictional riparian buffers:

1. Eliminate the County’s Zone 2 riparian buffer (update throughout SMP documents) 2. Revise riparian buffers (SMP Appendix H, Section 3.050 B (6)(c)) as indicated in the following table:

Environment Designations

Zone 1Buffer Width Zone 2

Perennial and intermittent streams in all environment designations 75 50 feet +0-50 feet

High Intensity 75 50 feet +0-50 feet

Rural Conservancy, Shoreline Residential, Urban Conservancy 100 75 feet +0-50 feet

Natural 150 100 feet +0-50 feet

3. Maintain current SMP provisions for administrative increased buffer widths for proposed high-

intensity uses, as prescribed in SMP Appendix H, Section 3.050 C (4)(c) 4. Maintain current SMP provisions allowing riparian buffer reductions up to 25%, as prescribed in

SMP Appendix H, Section 3.050 E

Anchor QEA also recommends incorporating language related to addressing functional breaks in riparian buffers created by developments such as roadways and railroads, as follows:

5. Add new provision in SMP Appendix H, Section 3.050 B (6)(c)(2):

3.050 B (6)(c)(2). Where a legally established road, railway, parking area, or other type of continuous impervious development crosses or extends along a shoreline or critical area buffer and is wider than 20 feet, the Administrator may approve a modification of the minimum required buffer width to the waterward edge of the improved continuous development provided the upland side of the continuous development area does not provide shoreline buffer function.

6. Add definition of “Road” to main body of SMP, Section 8: Definitions as follows:

“Road” means an improved and maintained public or private road that provides vehicular circulation or principal means of access to abutting properties and may also include provisions for public utilities, pedestrian walkways, public open space and recreation areas, cut and fill slopes, and drainage.


Proposed Structural Setbacks Shoreline Master Program Amendment Grette Associates concluded that structural setbacks from disturbed riparian and wetland buffers are not required to protect the existing habitat functions and values within disturbed buffers. The rationale behind structural setbacks is to protect buffers from construction activities and potential mitigation requirements resulting from buffer impacts. Where vegetation within regulatory buffers is already disturbed with little habitat function, structural setbacks are unnecessary, and elimination of this requirement will improve the administration and effectiveness of the SMP. The proposed SMP limited amendments related to structural setbacks include:

7. Eliminate structural setback requirement from wetland and riparian buffers where vegetation within the buffer is disturbed. Add provisions to SMP Appendix H, Section 2.050 (B) and Section 3.050 (B)(6)(c) by adding a new subheading 2.050 B (4) and 3.050 B (6)(c)(1) as follows:

Building setbacks shall not apply where existing vegetation within the critical area buffer is part of a legally established recreational or residential development, including legally established non-conforming residential development, or prior agricultural use and is characterized by maintained landscaped lawn, or other area of disturbed vegetation with minimal habitat function, as determined by the Administrator. Temporary fencing of the buffer area during construction activities shall still be required consistent with [2.050 B (5) or 3.050 C (2)].

Further, Anchor QEA proposes that an additional amendment could be considered to the main body of the SMP, Section 5.13, where building setback standards are initially defined.

8. Add definition of “disturbed vegetation” to main body of SMP, Section 8: Definitions, as follows:

“Disturbed vegetation” means areas, particularly within wetland and riparian buffers, where native vegetation has been and continues to be disturbed as part of a legally established recreational or residential development, including associated site improvements, or prior agricultural use, resulting in vegetated area that provides minimal habitat function or value. Typical disturbances include mowed lawn areas, landscaped areas, recreational uses, previous agricultural uses that are currently mowed, and maintained upland grasses and weedy species.


Proposed Mitigation and Monitoring Shoreline Master Program Amendments

Compensatory Mitigation Ratios The current SMP requires a minimum 1:1 compensatory mitigation ratio for development within riparian buffers that results in removal of any vegetation, and a 2:1 ratio where native vegetation is removed. Grette Associates recommended that the County consider increasing the compensatory mitigation ratio for the removal of non-native trees and shrubs to account for the temporal loss of habitat provided by non-native trees and shrubs while installed mitigation matures to the level of the species removed.

Anchor QEA maintains that the current SMP provisions for mitigation ratios are adequate to provide no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and values. Non-native trees and shrubs are often correlated with disturbed vegetation communities and may have greatly diminished functions depending on the species composition. The current SMP Appendix H, Section 3.037 G includes the flexibility for higher mitigation ratios with the provision that “mitigation and management plans shall evaluate the need for a higher mitigation ratio on a site by site basis, dependent upon the ecological functions and values provided by the habitat.” Relying on this provision will help avoid arbitrary mitigation ratios for non-native trees and shrubs that do not provide ecologically significant habitat function.

Monitoring Requirements The Technical Report concluded that the monitoring program and benchmarks included in the current SMP are appropriate; however, the development of additional criteria were recommended to address the enforcement of mitigation implementation such as mechanisms for sureties and criteria for additional monitoring cycles (years) if mitigation plantings are not installed or if mitigation site performance fails to meet interim performance objectives. The proposed SMP limited amendments related to monitoring recommendations include:

9. Maintain current SMP provisions for requiring sureties for proposals subject to mitigation, maintenance, or monitoring per SMP Appendix H, Section 1.070 and the Section 7.4 (Performance assurance and guarantee) of the main body of the SMP. Additional surety provisions are included in the monitoring criteria for wetland and riparian sections of Appendix H.

10. Add provision to allow increasing the required 5-year monitoring period to up to 10-years if mitigation plantings are not installed as required by the performance standard or if mitigation site performance fails to meet interim performance objectives defined in SMP Appendix H, Section 2.035 J and Section 3.037 I. Add new subheadings as follows:

2.035 J (6). If the mitigation plan is not installed per the timeline defined in Section 2.035 J, or monitoring reports indicate that mitigation is not achieving its goals in accordance with Section 2.035 J, the Administrator may, based on the recommendations of a qualified professional, increase the


required monitoring up to 10-years after the initial mitigation installation and require appropriate changes to the mitigation plan. The County may collect the proceeds of the mitigation plan bonds or surety and use those proceeds to install or complete the recommended changes when necessary. On-site monitoring and monitoring reports shall be submitted to Douglas County Transportation and Land Services 1, 3, and 5 years after mitigation installation and as additionally required by the Administrator when applicable.

3.037 I (6). If the mitigation plan is not installed per the timeline defined in Section 3.037 I, or monitoring reports indicate that mitigation is not achieving its goals in accordance with Section 3.037 I, the Administrator may, based on the recommendations of a qualified professional, increase the required monitoring to annually for up to 10-years after mitigation installation consistent with Section 2.035 J (6).

As a part of the County’s upcoming SMP periodic review process, the County could include a review of performance standards included in Appendix H and look for opportunities to combine those standards into a single section (potentially within Section 1.060) to help reduce redundancies within the regulations and simplify the administration and implementation of these standards.

Additional Amendments to Consider with the Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review The County is required to undergo a periodic review of their SMP on or before June 30, 2021 (RCW 90.583080 (4)). At that time, the County could consider additional locally-initiated amendments to support effective administration of the SMP and support shoreline uses and modifications while maintaining the no net loss requirements. Additional potential amendments could include:

• Clarification and additional provisions. ‒ Include provisions to allow limited lateral expansions for existing legally established

non-conforming structures with associated mitigation requirements

‒ Add clarification that swimming pools are considered a residential appurtenance

‒ Provide clearer guidance on the administrative approval process associated with buffer modifications as currently allowed within the SMP

‒ Provide draft language to define administrative provisions related to essential public facilities

• Mitigation and no net loss. ‒ Include provisions that on-site mitigation should occur where non-native vegetation is

present adjacent to existing native vegetation


‒ Provide definition for the location of off-site mitigation (within County or watershed) and that mitigation should focus on the best possible outcome in terms of functions and values

‒ Provide draft language for the use of future mitigation banking opportunities within the County

‒ Provide draft language to provide flexibility in addressing accessibility design standards within shoreline jurisdiction to include consideration of shoreline impacts

• Streamlined organization and structure. ‒ Review SMP’s organization and structure and identify opportunities to streamline with

the goal of improving the permitting process for applicants and County staff • Comprehensive review.

‒ Conduct a comprehensive review of the SMP to identify additional potential updates that support shoreline uses and modification while maintaining no net loss

References Grette Associates, 2018. Best Available Science Review for Riparian and Wetlands Areas in Douglas

County. Prepared for Douglas County Transportation and Land Services. September 2018.

Attachment SMP Appendix H.4 – Douglas County Shoreline Critical Area Regulations (Redlined Proposed Limited Amendments)

Attachment 1 SMP Appendix H.4 – Douglas County Shoreline Critical Area Regulations (Redlined Proposed Limited Amendments)

1

Appendix H 4. Douglas County Shoreline Critical Area Regulations

Chapter 1 Critical Areas – General Provisions

1.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the Shoreline Management Act’s policy of protection of shoreline natural resources through the protection and encouraged restoration of ecological functions necessary to sustain these resources; in conjunction with the other provisions of this Program.

1.020 Applicability. A. When a chapter reference is used, it shall be inclusive of all of Appendix H. B. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development activities within the shoreline

jurisdiction of unincorporated Douglas County. Any development authorized to alter the condition of any land, water, or vegetation; or to alter or construct any building, structure or improvement shall be in compliance with the requirements of this chapter.

C. In the event the provisions of this Program conflict with provisions of federal, state, county or city regulations, the provision that is the most protective of shoreline resources shall prevail, when consistent with Shoreline Management Act policy.

1.030 Reference Maps and Inventories. The distribution of critical areas within Douglas County are described and displayed in reference materials and on maps maintained by Douglas County Land Services. These reference materials, in the most current form, are intended for general information only and do not depict site-specific designations. They are intended to advise Douglas County, applicants, and other participants in the development permit process that a critical area may exist and that further study, review, and consideration may be necessary. These reference materials shall include but are not limited to the following:

A. Maps.

1. Natural Resource Conservation Service Soils Maps and Data, updated in 2007, as amended; 2. Douglas County Steep Slopes Maps and Data, as amended; 3. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (1978 and 1982) as amended; 4. Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (1978 and 1982) as amended; 5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, as amended; 6. USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Maps; 7. Aerial photos; 8. WDFW Priority Habitats and Species and Wildlife Heritage Maps and Data, 2001, as

amended; and

2

9. Stream functional types developed using the USGS hydrology dataset and aerial photo interpretation of riparian vegetation presence by Chuck Jones, Alliance Consulting Group, Inc., 2007.

B. Documents.

1. Approved special reports previously completed for the subject property may be allowed if the site conditions are the same as observed in the previously developed report. Wetland delineation reports older than five years typically need to be updated in order to meet state and federal requirements;

2. The Flood Insurance Study for the Unincorporated Areas (1978, revised 1982) as amended; 3. Douglas County Countywide Comprehensive Plan, as amended; 4. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey – Douglas County Soils Survey, as

amended; 5. Federal Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987, as amended); 6. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (WDOE #96-94, March

1997, as amended); 7. Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Eastern Washington-Revised (WDOE 04-06-

015, as amended); 8. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats and Species, May 1991,

as amended; 9. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats – Riparian, December

1997, as amended; 10. Priority Habitats and Species List, July 1999, as amended; 11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2006). Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers

Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance program, Environmental Lab ERDC/EL TRT-06-16, as amended;

12. Wetlands in Washington State – Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006; and

13. Wetlands in Washington State – Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008.

1.040 Disclosure. The presence of any known or suspected critical areas on or within two hundred feet of property that is the subject of a development permit shall be identified by the applicant in the application materials submitted to Douglas County.

1.050 Review Process. Provisions of this chapter shall be considered and applied appropriately during development permit application reviews within shoreline jurisdiction. Review of development within frequently flooded

3

areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and wetlands and any associated buffers within shoreline jurisdiction that does not require a development permit application shall be subject to the provisions of Section 1.080C of Appendix H.

1.060 Mitigation, Maintenance, Monitoring and Contingency. A. Mitigation, maintenance, monitoring and contingency plans shall be implemented by the

developer to protect critical areas and their buffers as specified by the provisions of this Program. B. The property owner shall be responsible for reporting to Douglas County Land Services and

undertaking appropriate corrective action when monitoring reveals a significant deviation from predicted impacts or a failure of mitigation or maintenance measures.

1.070 Surety. If a development proposal is subject to mitigation, maintenance or monitoring plans, an assurance device or surety may be required by the review authority in accordance with Chapter 7, of this Program.

1.080 Special Reports. A. In order to maintain and protect critical areas, as well as to assist in classifying and designating

such areas, site-specific environmental information will be required when evaluating a development proposal.

B. Special reports shall be submitted for review and approval in conjunction with development applications when required by the review authority. Each chapter dealing with a specific critical area contains a description of when special reports may be required.

C. When no other application review process is required, final special reports shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to Chapter 7, subsection 7.3.020 or subsection 7.3.030 of this Program, as determined by the Administrator.

1.090 Special Reports – Responsibility for Completion. The preparation of special reports or tests required by this chapter is the responsibility of the applicant. Costs incurred by the county to engage technical consultants or for staff review and interpretation of data and findings submitted by or on behalf of the developer or applicant shall be reimbursed by the applicant in accordance with a schedule adopted by Douglas County.

1.100 Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. During project development the following standards apply:

A. All drainage and erosion control plans shall be prepared by an engineer or other qualified person as approved by the reviewing authority.

4

B. All drainage and erosion control plans shall address methods to minimize and contain soil within the project boundaries during construction and to provide for stormwater drainage from the site and its surroundings during and after construction.

C. All drainage and erosion control plans shall be prepared in conformance with the provisions of Section 4.2 Water Quality and the provisions of this Program; in addition to conformance with applicable state and local standards.

1.110 Geotechnical Reports and Analysis A. Geotechnical reports and analysis shall be in conformance with Chapter 4 of Appendix H, and all

applicable provisions of this Program.

1.120 Grading and Excavation Plan. All grading and excavation plans shall be prepared by a professional engineer licensed to practice in the State of Washington, and it shall contain the following information:

A. A cover sheet showing the general vicinity and specific location of work, the name and address of the owner and the licensed civil engineer who prepared the plans;

B. Property limits and accurate contours of existing ground and details of terrain and area drainage. C. Limits of proposed excavation and fill sites, finished contours and proposed drainage systems

and/or facilities, including an estimated runoff served by the systems and/or facilities; D. Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and

the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners which are within fifteen feet of the property;

E. Recommendations included in any soil engineering reports and/or an engineering geology reports shall be incorporated in the grading plans or specifications.

Chapter 2 Critical Areas – Wetlands

2.010 Authorized Uses and Activities. Uses and activities allowed within designated wetlands or associated wetland buffers are those uses authorized by the Douglas County Regional Shoreline Master Program, subject to the provisions of this chapter.

2.020 Identification and Rating. A. All wetlands shall be identified and delineated in Douglas County to reflect the relative function,

value and uniqueness of the wetland using the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (WDOE, March 1997, as amended); in conjunction with the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1987, as amended); and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (2006), Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland

5

Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, Environmental Lab ERDC/EL TRT-06-16, as amended. Douglas County may use the following information sources as guidance in identifying the presence of wetlands and the subsequent need for a wetland delineation study:

1. Hydric soils, soils with significant soil inclusions, and "wet spots" identified within the Douglas County soil survey;

2. National Wetlands Inventory; 3. Previous wetland rating evaluation; and, 4. On-site inspection.

B. Wetland boundary surveys and rating evaluations shall be conducted by a qualified professional biologist and use the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington-Revised (WDOE 04-06-015, as amended). The wetland boundary shall be field staked by the biologist and surveyed by a land surveyor for disclosure on all final plats, maps, etc.

C. The Administrator may waive the requirement for the survey for development if:

1. The proposed development is not within three hundred feet of the associated wetlands; and 2. There is adequate information available on the area proposed for development to determine

the impacts of the proposed development and appropriate mitigating measures.

D. The wetland boundary and any associated buffer area shall be identified on all plats, maps, plans and specifications submitted for the project.

E. An evaluation of any unrated wetland is necessary when there is a proposed development or activity to be located adjacent to, or within an area containing a wetland.

2.030 Designation. Sites classified in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.020 of Appendix H are designated as wetlands.

2.035 Wetland Management and Mitigation Plan. A. A wetland management and mitigation plan shall be required when impacts associated with

development within a wetland or wetland buffer are unavoidable, demonstrated by compliance with Section 2.035G of Appendix H.

B. Wetland management and mitigation plans shall be prepared by a qualified professional biologist who is knowledgeable of wetland conditions within North Central Washington.

C. In determining the extent and type of mitigation appropriate for the development, the plan shall evaluate the ecological processes that affect and influence critical area structure and function within the watershed or sub-basin; the individual and cumulative effects of the action upon the functions of the critical area and associated watershed; and note observed or predicted trends regarding specific wetland types in the watershed, in light of natural and human processes.

6

D. Where compensatory mitigation is necessary, the plan should seek to implement shoreline restoration objectives identified within the Douglas County Shoreline Restoration Plan, Appendix B.

E. The wetland management and mitigation plan shall demonstrate, when implemented, that there shall be no net loss of the ecological functions of the wetland and buffer area.

F. The wetland management and mitigation plan shall identify how impacts from the proposed project shall be mitigated, as well as the necessary monitoring and contingency actions for the continued maintenance of the wetland and its associated buffer.

G. Mitigation Sequence. When an alteration or impact to a critical area is proposed, the biologist shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been taken to mitigate impacts in the following prioritized order:

1. Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action.

2. Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts.

3. Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.

4. Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

5. Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments.

6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.

Mitigation for development may include a sequenced combination of the above measures as needed to achieve the most effective protection or compensatory mitigation for critical area functions.

H. Mitigation Ratios. Mitigation ratios shall be used when impacts to wetlands and/or wetland buffers cannot be avoided. Compensatory mitigation shall restore, create, rehabilitate, or enhance equivalent or greater wetland and wetland buffer functions. Mitigation shall be located onsite unless the biologist can demonstrate, and the county approves that onsite mitigation will result in a net loss of ecological functions. If offsite mitigation measures are determined to be appropriate, offsite mitigation shall be located in the same watershed as the development, within Douglas County. The mitigation ratios (mitigation amount:disturbed area) for impacts to wetlands by wetland type and buffer are:

7

Wetland Category Reestablishment or

Creation1,2 Rehabilitation1,2 Enhancement1,3 Only

Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1

Category III 2:1 4:1 8:1

Category II 4:1 8:1 16:1

Category I 6:1 8:1 24:1 1. Natural heritage sites, alkali wetlands, and bogs are considered irreplaceable wetlands because they perform special

functions that cannot be replaced through compensatory mitigation. Impacts to such wetlands would therefore result in a net loss of some functions no matter what kind of mitigation is provided.

2. Provides gains in a whole suite of functions both at the site and landscape scale. Rehabilitation actions often focus on restoring environmental processes that have been disturbed or altered by previous or ongoing human activity. (restore environmental process of previous disturbances)

3. Actions which provide gains in only a few functions. Enhancement actions often focus on structural or superficial improvements to a site and generally do not address larger scale environmental processes. (structural or superficial actions)

The mitigation ratios (mitigation amount:disturbed area) for impacts to the wetland buffer are 1:1 for development within the buffer; and a ratio of 2:1 for native vegetation removal within a buffer. Mitigation within wetland buffers for diverse, high quality habitat or offsite mitigation may require a higher level of mitigation. Wetland management and mitigation plans shall evaluate the need for a higher mitigation ratio on a site by site basis, dependent upon the ecological functions provided by the buffer area. Recommendations by resource agencies in evaluating appropriate buffer mitigation shall be encouraged.

I. Plan Contents. The wetland management and mitigation plan shall contain a report that includes, but is not limited to, the following information:

1. Location maps, regional 1:24,000 and local 1:4,800; 2. A map or maps indicating the boundary delineation of the wetland; the width and length of

all existing and proposed structures, utilities, roads, easements; wastewater and stormwater facilities; and adjacent land uses;

3. A description of the proposed project including the nature, density and intensity of the proposed development and the associated grading, structures, utilities, etc., in sufficient detail to allow analysis of such land use change upon the identified wetland and wetland buffer;

4. A detailed description of vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic conditions, soil and substrate characteristics, and topographic features within and surrounding the wetland;

5. A detailed description of vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic conditions, soil and substrate characteristics, and topographic features within any compensation site;

6. A detailed description of the proposed project’s effect on the wetland and wetland buffer, and a discussion of any federal, state, or local management recommendations which have been developed for the area;

7. A plan which explains how any adverse impacts created by the proposed development will be mitigated to ensure no net loss of ecological function. Methods may include, but are not limited to the following techniques:

8

a. Establishment of buffer zones, b. Preservation of critically important plants and trees, c. Limitation of access to the wetland area, d. Seasonal restriction of construction activities, e. Establishment of a monitoring program within the plan, f. Drainage and erosion control techniques, g. Direct lights away from the wetland and buffer, h. Locate facilities that generate substantial noise away from the wetland and buffer, i. Establish covenants limiting the use of pesticides within 150 feet of the wetland, j. Implement integrated pest management programs, k. Post signs at the outer edge of the critical area or buffer to clearly indicate the location of

the critical area according to the direction of the county, l. Plant buffer with native vegetation appropriate for the region to create screens or

barriers to noise, light, human intrusion and discourage domestic animal intrusion, and m. Use low impact development where appropriate.

8. A detailed discussion of on-going management practices which will protect the wetland after the project site has been fully developed, including proposed monitoring, contingency, maintenance, and surety programs as provided for in Section 2.035 J of Appendix H.

9. A narrative which addresses Section 2.035 A-H of Appendix H. 10. A description of the biologist’s qualifications and experience.

J. Performance Standards. The following performance standards shall apply to compensatory mitigation projects:

1. Specific criteria shall be provided in the mitigation plan for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the mitigation project are being met. Such criteria may include percent aerial cover and survival rates of planted vegetation, species abundance and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, water quality improvement, flood retention, or other ecological, geological, or hydrological criteria. Unless the site-specific criteria dictate otherwise, default performance standards for the site shall meet mitigation planting survival of 100% for the first year and 80% plant survival for each of the 4 years following initial planting.

2. Mitigation must be installed no later than the next growing season after completion of site improvements, unless otherwise approved by the Administrator.

3. Where necessary, a temporary means of irrigation shall be installed for the mitigation plantings within the wetland, that are designed by a landscape architect or equivalent professional, as approved by the Administrator. Where necessary, the administrator may require a permanent means of irrigation be installed for mitigation plantings within the wetland buffer, given the arid conditions of the region. The design shall meet the specific needs of the wetland, riparian and shrub steppe vegetation, as may be applicable.

9

4. Monitoring reports by the biologist must include verification that the planting areas have less than 20% total non-native /invasive plant cover consisting of exotic and/or invasive species. Exotic and invasive species may include any species on the state noxious weed list or considered a noxious or problem weed by the Natural Conservation Services Department or local conservation districts.

5. Onsite monitoring and monitoring reports shall be submitted to Douglas County Transportation and Land Services 1 year after mitigation installation; 3 years after mitigation installation; and 5 years after mitigation installation. Monitoring reports shall be submitted by a qualified professional biologist. The biologist must verify that the conditions of approval and provisions in the wetland management and mitigation plan have been satisfied.

5.6. If the mitigation plan is not installed per the timeline defined in Section 2.035 J, or monitoring reports indicate that mitigation is not achieving its goals in accordance with Section 2.035 J, the Administrator may, based on the recommendations of a qualified professional, increase the required monitoring up to 10-years after the initial mitigation installation and require appropriate changes to the mitigation plan. The County may collect the proceeds of the mitigation plan bonds or surety and use those proceeds to install or complete the recommended changes when necessary. On-site monitoring and monitoring reports shall be submitted to Douglas County Transportation and Land Services 1, 3, and 5 years after mitigation installation and as additionally required by the Administrator when applicable.

6.7. Mitigation sites shall be maintained to ensure that the mitigation and management plan objectives are successful. Maintenance shall include corrective actions to rectify problems, include rigorous, as-needed elimination of undesirable plants; protection of shrubs and small trees from competition by grasses and herbaceous plants, and repair and replacement of any dead plants.

7.8. Prior to site development and or building permit issuance, a performance surety agreement in conformance with Chapter 7 of this Program, must be entered into by the property owner and Douglas County. The surety agreement must include the complete costs for the mitigation and monitoring which may include but not be limited to: the cost of installation, delivery, plant material, soil amendments, permanent irrigation, seed mix, and 3 monitoring visits and reports by a qualified professional biologist, including Washington State Sales Tax. Douglas County must approve the quote for said improvements.

8.9. Sequential release of funds associated with the surety agreement shall be reviewed for conformance with the conditions of approval and the mitigation and management plan. Release of funds may occur in increments of 1/3 for substantial conformance with the plan and conditions of approval. Verification of conformance with the provisions of the mitigation and management plan and conditions of approval after 1 year of mitigation installation shall also allow for the full release of funds associated with irrigation systems, clearing, and grubbing and

10

any soil amendments. If the standards that are not met are only minimally out of compliance and contingency actions are actively being pursued by the property owner to bring the project into compliance, the county may choose to consider a partial release of the scheduled increment. Non-compliance can result in one or more of the following actions: carryover of the surety amount to the next review period; use of funds to remedy the nonconformance; scheduling a hearing with the Douglas County Hearing Examiner to review conformance with the conditions of approval and to determine what actions may be appropriate.

2.040 Application Requirements. Development permit applications shall provide appropriate information on forms provided by the review authority, including without limitation the information described below. Additional reports or information to identify potential impacts and mitigation measures to wetlands may be required if deemed necessary. Development within a wetland or its buffer shall provide the following information:

A. Wetland boundary survey and rating evaluation pursuant to Section 2.020 of Appendix H; B. Wetland management and mitigation plan pursuant to Section 2.035 of Appendix H;

2.050 General Standards. The following minimum standards shall apply to all development activities occurring within designated wetlands and/or their buffers.

A. Except where permitted by this Program, wetlands and wetland buffers will be left undisturbed, unless the development proposal demonstrates that impacts to the wetland and/or buffer are unavoidable, demonstrated by compliance with Section 2.035G of Appendix H. Impacts must be addressed with appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures as determined on a site-specific basis in conformance with Section 2.035 of Appendix H.

B. Wetland Buffers Appropriate buffer areas shall be maintained between all permitted uses and activities and the designated wetland. Provisions to identify the type of wetland and delineate its boundary are established in Section 2.020 of Appendix H, and must be conducted by a qualified professional biologist.

1. The width of a wetland buffer, as measured from the wetland edge established in the approved wetland boundary survey, shall be as follows:

Wetland Type Low – Moderate Intensity Dev. *High Intensity Development

Wetland Type 1 150 feet. 250 feet

Wetland Type 2 100 feet 200 feet

Wetland Type 3 75 feet 150 feet

Wetland Type 4 50 feet 50 feet * For the purposes of Section 2.050B of Appendix H, high intensity uses include: commercial, industrial, institutional, retail sales, residential (greater than 1 unit/acre), conversion from non-agricultural lands to high-intensity commercial

11

agriculture (dairies, nurseries, hobby farms, feed mills, packing plants, agricultural processing plants or warehouses for the purposes of processing, packing, and storage of agricultural products), and high-intensity recreation (golf courses, ball fields).

2. Where a wetland is located within a riparian buffer, the buffer width, riparian or wetland, which provides the greatest degree of protection shall apply.

3. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland edge, as established by the approved wetland boundary survey.

3.4. Building setbacks shall not apply where existing vegetation within the critical area buffer is part of a legally established recreational or residential development, including legally established non-conforming residential development, or prior agricultural use and is characterized by maintained landscaped lawn, or other area of disturbed vegetation with minimal habitat function, as determined by the Administrator. Temporary fencing of the buffer area during construction activities shall still be required consistent with 2.050 B (5).

4.5. All buffer areas shall be temporarily fenced between the construction activity and the buffer with a highly visible and durable protective barrier during construction to prevent access and protect the designated wetland and associated buffer. The Administrator may waive this requirement if an alternative to fencing which achieves the same objective is proposed and approved.

5.6. Except as otherwise allowed, buffers shall be retained in their natural condition. Any habitat created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall have the standard buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland.

6.7. Land divisions within designated wetland areas shall require a minimum lot frontage along the protective buffer or shoreline as outlined in this Program.

7.8. The width of the buffer shall be increased by the Administrator for a development project on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect the designated wetland function and value. The determination shall be based on site-specific and project-related conditions which include, without limitation:

a. The designated wetland is used for feeding, nesting, and resting by species proposed or listed by the federal or state government as endangered, threatened, sensitive, candidate, monitor or critical; or if it is outstanding potential habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees;

b. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts;

C. Buffer Width Averaging. Standard buffer widths may be modified by the Administrator for single family dwellings, for existing legal lots of record in place at the time of adoption of this Program, a development proposal by averaging buffer widths based on a report submitted by the applicant and prepared by a qualified professional biologist. Buffer width averaging shall only be allowed where the applicant demonstrates all of the following:

12

1. Averaging is necessary to avoid an extraordinary hardship to the applicant caused by circumstances peculiar to the property;

2. The designated wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation;

3. The width averaging shall not adversely affect or impact the designated wetland and buffer’s functional value;

4. The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging.

5. The minimum buffer width of a Category I -– IV wetland at its narrowest point shall not be less than seventy-five (75) percent of the widths established under Section 2.050B of Appendix H;

6. The wetland buffer has not been reduced under any other provisions of this chapter. The buffer has not been varied or reduced by any prior actions administered by Douglas County. Sites which utilize buffer width averaging are not eligible for any future buffer width reductions under any other provisions of this Program, except as administered under Section 6.8 Variances.

7. The variation of buffer widths on a site, via buffer width averaging, must be supported by best available science as demonstrated by the submittal and approval of a wetland management and mitigation plan in conformance with Section 2.035 of Appendix H.

D. Administrative Buffer Reduction. The Administrator shall have the authority to reduce buffer widths on a case-by-case basis for single family dwelling units which would be placed on existing legal lots of record in place at the time of adoption of this Program; provided that the general standards for avoidance and minimization per Section 2.035G of Appendix H shall apply, and when the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that all of the following criteria have been met:

1. The buffer reduction shall not result in a net loss of functions of the wetland or wetland buffer.

2. The maximum buffer width reduction allowed shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent. 3. The buffer width reduction is contingent upon the submittal and approval of a wetland

management and mitigation plan in conformance with Section 2.035 of Appendix H. 4. The buffer has not been varied or reduced by any prior actions administered by Douglas

County. Sites which utilize administrative buffer width reductions are not eligible for any future buffer width reductions, under any other provisions of this Program, except as administered under Section 6.8 Variances.

E. High Intensity Development – Administrative Buffer Reduction. The Administrator shall have the authority to reduce buffer widths on a case-by-case basis for high intensity development associated with Type 1-3 wetlands, within legal lots of record in place at the time of adoption of this Program. For the purposes of this section, high intensity

13

development is defined by Section 2.050(B)1 of Appendix H. The general standards for avoidance and minimization per Section 2.035G of Appendix H shall apply and the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that all of the following criteria have been met:

1. The buffer reduction shall not result in a net loss of functions of the wetland or wetland buffer.

2. The maximum buffer width reduction allowed shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent. 3. The buffer width reduction is contingent upon the submittal and approval of a wetland

management and mitigation plan in conformance with Section 2.035 of Appendix H. 4. The buffer has not been varied or reduced by any prior actions administered by Douglas

County. Sites which utilize administrative buffer width reductions are not eligible for any future buffer width reductions, under any other provisions of this Program, except as administered under Section 6.8 Variances, of this Program.

2.060 Specific Standards. The following standards shall apply to the activity identified below, in addition to the general standards outlined in Section 2.050 of Appendix H.

A. Developments which contain a wetland or wetland buffer on site shall comply with the following minimum standards:

1. All plats shall disclose the presence on each residential lot one building site, including access, that is suitable for development and which is not within the designated wetland or its associated buffer;

2. All designated wetland areas and their proposed buffers shall be clearly identified on all final plats, maps, documents, etc.;

3. Designated wetlands and their associated wetland buffers shall be designated and disclosed on the final plats, maps, documents, etc., as critical area tracts, nonbuildable lots and buffer areas or common areas. Ownership and control may be transferred to a homeowner’s association or designated as an easement or covenant encumbering the property.

4. All lots within a major subdivision, short plat or binding site plan shall have the outer edge of all required buffers clearly marked on site with permanent buffer edge markers. Buffer markers may be either buffer signs or steel posts painted with a standard color and label, as approved by the Administrator. The markers shall be field verified by the surveyor or biologist of record prior to final plat approval. Each lot shall contain a minimum of three buffer area markers located at the landward edge of the buffer perimeter for each habitat type; one located at each side property line and one midway between side property lines. Covenants for the subdivision shall incorporate a requirement stating that buffer area markers shall not be removed, or relocated, except as a may be approved by the Administrator.

14

5. Residential developments with the potential for two or more dwelling units shall disclose on the face of the plat whether the development will be served by joint use or community dock facilities or a combination thereof. Access easements and dock locations shall be identified by a qualified professional biologist who will address the standards of Section 2.035G of Appendix H. The identification of access easements and dock locations is not a substitute for permitting required in order to develop moorage facilities and in no way guarantees such an approval.

B. Stream Crossings. Expansion or construction of stream crossings may be authorized within a designated wetland or wetland buffer, subject to the following minimum standards:

1. Bridges are required for streams which support salmonids; 2. All crossings using culverts shall use superspan or oversize culverts; 3. Crossings shall not occur in salmonid spawning areas unless no other feasible crossing site

exists; 4. Bridge piers or abutments shall not be placed in either the floodway or between the ordinary

high water marks unless no other feasible alternative placement exists; 5. Crossings shall not diminish flood carrying capacity; and 6. Crossings shall serve multiple properties whenever possible.

C. Water dependent uses, as defined by this Program, may be located within a wetland or wetland buffer when the applicant or property owner can demonstrate compliance with Section 2.035 of Appendix H.

D. Trails and trail-related facilities. Construction of public, private community, and private trails and trail-related facilities, such as picnic tables, benches, interpretive centers and signs, viewing platforms, and campsites may be authorized within designated resource lands and critical areas, subject to the following minimum standards:

1. Trail facilities shall, to the extent feasible, be placed on existing road grades, utility corridors, or any other previously disturbed areas;

2. Trail facilities shall minimize the removal of trees, shrubs, snags, and important habitat features. Vegetation management performed in accordance with best management practices as part of ongoing maintenance to eliminate a hazard to trail users is considered consistent with this standard;

3. Viewing platforms, interpretive centers, campsites, picnic areas, benches and their associated access shall be designed and located to minimize disturbance of wildlife and/or critical characteristics of the affected conservation area;

4. All facilities shall be constructed with materials complementary to the surrounding environment;

5. Trail facilities that parallel the shoreline may be located in the outer 25 percent of the buffer area; and

15

6. Commercial and public trails shall not exceed 10 feet in width 7. Private trails shall not exceed 4 feet in width; 8. Except as provided in D.5 above, the width of commercial and public trails shall be consistent

with Section 1020.06(1) of the Washington State Design Manual as in now exists or may hereafter be amended;

9. Trails that provide direct shoreline access shall not exceed 4 feet in width and shall be kept to the minimum number necessary to serve the intended purpose;

10. Review and analysis of a proposed trail facility shall demonstrate no net loss of ecological functions and values in conformance with this chapter; and

11. Trail facilities shall not be exempt from special report requirements, as may be required by this chapter.

2.070 Variances. Applicants who are unable to comply with the specific dimensional or performance standards of this Chapter may seek approval pursuant to the variance standards of Section 6.8 Variances of this Program, in addition to satisfying the requirements identified below:

A. The project includes mitigation for unavoidable critical area and buffer impacts, consistent with the requirements of Section 2.035 of Appendix H.

B. The applicant can clearly demonstrate compliance with the avoidance and minimization standards established in subsection 2.035G of Appendix H.

Chapter 3 Critical Areas – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas

3.010 Authorized Uses and Activities. Uses and activities allowed within designated habitat conservation areas are those uses authorized by the Douglas County Regional Shoreline Master Program, subject to the provisions of this chapter.

3.020 Identification. A. All fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall be identified by Douglas County to reflect the

relative function, value and uniqueness of the habitat area as established through an approved habitat ranking evaluation submitted by an applicant for development occurring on a site, in accordance with this Program. Douglas County may use the information sources in Section 1.030 of Appendix H as guidance in identifying the presence of potential fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and the subsequent need for a habitat boundary survey along with an onsite inspection, if necessary.

B. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas include:

1. Areas in which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; 2. Habitats and species of local importance;

16

3. Naturally occurring ponds under twenty acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat;

4. Waters of the state; 5. Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity; 6. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas; 7. Riparian areas; 8. Lakes 20 acres and greater in size with a water depth of 6 feet or greater; or 9. Intermittent and perennial streams. 10. Priority habitats and species as identified by the Washington State Department of Fish and

Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Program.

C. Identification and regulation of all wetlands, lakes 20 acres or greater in size with a depth less than 6 feet, lakes under 20 acres in size, and ponds, shall be in accordance with Appendix H-Chapter 2 Critical Areas – Wetlands.

D. Identification and regulation of ephemeral or intermittent drainages which do not contain wetland or riparian habitat shall be in accordance with Appendix H–Chapter 4 Critical Areas –Geologically Hazardous Areas and Appendix H – Chapter 6 Flood Damage Prevention.

3.030 Designation. All existing areas of unincorporated Douglas County identified as stated in Section 3.020 of Appendix H, as determined by the Administrator, are designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. In addition to existing fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas of unincorporated Douglas County identified as stated in Section 3.020 of Appendix H, the County may designate additional species, habitats of local importance, and/or wildlife corridors as follows:

A. In order to nominate an area, species, or corridor to the category of Locally important, an individual or organization must:

1. Demonstrate a need for special consideration based on:

a. Declining population, b. Sensitivity to habitat manipulation, c. Commercial, recreational, cultural, or other special value, or d. Maintenance of connectivity between habitat areas.

2. Propose relevant management strategies considered effective and within the scope of this chapter;

3. Identify effects on property ownership and use; and 4. Provide a map showing the species or habitat location(s).

B. Submitted proposals shall be reviewed by the county and may be forwarded to the State Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, and/or other local, state, federal, and/or

17

tribal agencies or experts for comments and recommendations regarding accuracy of data and effectiveness of proposed management strategies.

C. If the proposal is found to be complete, accurate, and consistent with the purposes and intent of this chapter and the various goals and objectives of the Douglas County Countywide Comprehensive Plan, the Growth Management Act, the Shoreline Management Act, and this Program; the Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing to solicit comment. Approved nominations will then be processed as amendments to this Program in conformance with Chapter 7, in order to be considered as a designated locally important habitats, species, or corridors and if approved will be subject to the provisions of this chapter.

3.035 Habitat Boundary Survey. A. A wildlife habitat boundary survey and evaluation shall be conducted by a qualified professional

biologist, as appropriate, who is knowledgeable of wildlife habitat within North Central Washington. The wildlife habitat boundary shall be field staked by the biologist and surveyed by a land surveyor for disclosure on all final plats, maps, etc.

B. The Administrator may waive the requirement for the survey for minor development if:

1. The proposed development is not within the extended proximity of the associated wildlife habitat;

2. There is adequate information available on the area proposed for development to determine the impacts of the proposed development and appropriate mitigating measures; and

3. The applicant provides voluntary deed restrictions that are approved by the Administrator.

C. The wildlife habitat boundary and any associated buffer shall be identified on all plats, maps, plans and specifications submitted for the project.

3.037 Fish/Wildlife Habitat Management and Mitigation Plan. A. A fish/wildlife habitat management and mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified

professional biologist who is knowledgeable of fish and wildlife habitat within North Central Washington.

B. In determining the extent and type of mitigation appropriate for the development, the plan shall evaluate the ecological processes that affect and influence critical area structure and function within the water shed or sub-basin; the individual and cumulative effects of the action upon the functions of the critical area and associated watershed; and note observed or predicted trends regarding specific wetland types in the watershed, in light of natural and human processes.

C. Where compensatory mitigation is necessary, the plan should seek to implement shoreline restoration objectives identified within the Douglas County Shoreline Restoration Plan, Appendix B.

D. The fish/wildlife habitat management and mitigation plan shall demonstrate, when implemented, no net loss of ecological functions of the habitat conservation area and buffer.

18

E. The fish/wildlife habitat management and mitigation plan shall identify how impacts from the proposed project shall be mitigated, as well as the necessary monitoring and contingency actions for the continued maintenance of the habitat conservation area and any associated buffer.

F. Mitigation Sequence. When an alteration or impact to a critical area is proposed, the biologist shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been taken to mitigate impacts in the following prioritized order:

1. Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action.

2. Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts.

3. Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.

4. Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

5. Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and the mitigation project and taking appropriate corrective measures.

Mitigation for development may include a sequenced combination of the above measures as needed to achieve the most effective protection or compensatory mitigation for critical area functions.

G. Mitigation Ratios. Mitigation ratios shall be used when impacts to aquatic habitat, or terrestrialriparian buffers (Zone 1 + Zone 2), are unavoidable. Compensatory mitigation shall restore, create, rehabilitate or enhance equivalent or greater ecological functions. Mitigation shall be located onsite unless the biologist can demonstrate, and the county approves that onsite mitigation will result in a net loss of ecological functions. If offsite mitigation measures are determined to be appropriate, offsite mitigation shall be located in the same watershed as the development, within Douglas County. The onsite mitigation ratio, (mitigation amount:disturbed area), shall be at a minimum ratio of 1:1 for development within aquatic habitat and terrestrial buffersriparian buffers (Zone 1 + Zone 2). A ratio of 2:1 shall apply to native vegetation removal within these areas. Mitigation for diverse, high quality habitat or offsite mitigation may require a higher level of mitigation. Mitigation and management plans shall evaluate the need for a higher mitigation ratio on a site by site basis, dependent upon the ecological functions and values provided by the habitat. Recommendations by resource agencies in evaluating appropriate mitigation shall be encouraged.

H. Plan Contents. The fish/wildlife habitat management and mitigation plan shall contain a report including but not limited to, the following information:

19

1. Location maps, regional 1:24,000 and local 1:4,800; 2. A map or maps indicating the boundary of the habitat conservation areas; the width and

length of all existing and proposed structures, utilities, roads, easements; wastewater and stormwater facilities; and adjacent land uses;

3. A description of the proposed project including the nature, density and intensity of the proposed development and the associated grading, structures, roads, easements, wastewater facilities, stormwater facilities, utilities, etc., in sufficient detail to allow analysis of such land use change upon the habitat conservation area;

4. A detailed discussion of surface and subsurface hydrologic features both on and adjacent to the site where the review authority determines appropriate;

5. A description of the vegetation in the habitat conservation area, on the overall project site and adjacent to the site;

6. A detailed description of the proposed project’s effect on the habitat conservation area, and a discussion of any federal, state, or local management recommendations which have been developed for the species or habitats in the area;

7. A plan which explains how any adverse impacts created by the proposed development will be mitigated to ensure no net loss of ecological function. Methods may include, but are not limited to the following techniques:

a. Establishment of buffer zones, b. Preservation of critically important plants and trees, c. Limitation of access to the habitat conservation area, d. Seasonal restriction of construction activities, e. Establishment of a timetable for periodic review of the plan, f. Direct lights away from the habitat conservation area and buffer, g. Locate facilities that generate substantial noise away from the habitat conservation area

and buffer, h. Establish covenants that limit the use of pesticides within the buffer or habitat area, i. Implement integrated pest management programs, j. Post signs at the outer edge of the habitat conservation area or buffer to clearly indicate

the location of the critical area according to the direction of the county, k. Plant buffer with native vegetation appropriate for the region to create screens or

barriers to noise, light, human intrusion and discourage domestic animal intrusion, l. Use low impact development where appropriate, and m. Application of management recommendations developed by the Washington State

Department of Fish and Wildlife through its Priority Habitat Species Program.

8. A detailed discussion of on-going management practices which will protect the habitat conservation area after the project site has been fully developed, including proposed

20

monitoring, contingency, maintenance, and surety programs as provided for in Section 3.037 I of Appendix H.

9. A narrative which addresses Section 3.037 A-G, of Appendix H. 10. A description of the biologist’s qualifications and experience.

I. Performance Standards. The following performance standards shall apply to compensatory mitigation projects:

1. Mitigation planting survival will be 100% for the first year, and 80% for each of the 4 years following.

2. Mitigation must be installed no later than the next growing season after completion of site improvements, unless otherwise approved by the Administrator.

3. Where necessary, a permanent means of irrigation shall be installed for the mitigation plantings that are designed by a landscape architect or equivalent professional, as approved by the Administrator. The design shall meet the specific needs of riparian and shrub steppe vegetation.

4. Monitoring reports by the biologist must include verification that the planting areas have less than 20% total non-native /invasive plant cover consisting of exotic and/or invasive species. Exotic and invasive species may include any species on the state noxious weed list, or considered a noxious or problem weed by the Natural Conservation Services Department or local conservation districts.

5. Onsite monitoring and monitoring reports shall be submitted to Douglas County Transportation and Land Services 1 year after mitigation installation; 3 years after mitigation installation; and 5 years after mitigation installation. The length of time involved in monitoring and monitoring reports may be increased by the Administrator for a development project on a case-by-case basis when longer monitoring time is necessary to establish or re-establish functions and values of the mitigation site. Monitoring reports shall be submitted by a qualified professional biologist. The biologist must verify that the conditions of approval and provisions in the fish and wildlife management and mitigation plan have been satisfied.

5.6. If the mitigation plan is not installed per the timeline defined in Section 3.037 I, or monitoring reports indicate that mitigation is not achieving its goals in accordance with Section 3.037 I, the Administrator may, based on the recommendations of a qualified professional, increase the required monitoring to annually for up to 10-years after mitigation installation consistent with Section 2.035 J (6).

6.7. Mitigation sites shall be maintained to ensure that the mitigation and management plan objectives are successful. Maintenance shall include corrective actions to rectify problems, include rigorous, as-needed elimination of undesirable plants; protection of shrubs and small trees from competition by grasses and herbaceous plants, and repair and replacement of any dead plants.

21

7.8. Sequential release of funds associated with the surety agreement shall be reviewed for conformance with the conditions of approval and the mitigation and management plan. Release of funds may occur in increments of 1/3 for substantial conformance with the plan and conditions of approval. Verification of conformance with the provisions of the mitigation and management plan and conditions of approval after 1 year of mitigation installation shall also allow for the full release of funds associated with irrigation systems, clearing, and grubbing and any soil amendments. If the standards that are not met are only minimally out of compliance and contingency actions are actively being pursued by the property owner to bring the project into compliance, the county may choose to consider a partial release of the scheduled increment. Non-compliance can result in one or more of the following actions: carryover of the surety amount to the next review period; use of funds to remedy the nonconformance; scheduling a hearing with the Douglas County Hearing Examiner to review conformance with the conditions of approval and to determine what actions may be appropriate.

8.9. Prior to site development and or building permit issuance, a performance surety agreement in conformance with Chapter 7 of this Program, must be entered into by the property owner and Douglas County. The surety agreement must include the complete costs for the mitigation and monitoring which may include but not be limited to: the cost of installation, delivery, plant material, soil amendments, permanent irrigation, seed mix, and 3 monitoring visits and reports by a qualified professional biologist, including Washington State Sales Tax. Douglas County must approve the quote for said improvements.

3.040 Application Requirements. Development permit applications shall provide appropriate information on forms provided by the review authority, including without limitation the information described below. Additional reports or information to identify potential impacts and mitigation measures to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas may be required if deemed necessary. Development within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or its buffer shall provide the following information:

A. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed buildings, roads and other improvements, and their physical relationship to the habitat conservation area;

B. The location and type of any proposed buffers, including the identification of any other protective measures.

C. Wildlife habitat boundary survey and ranking evaluation pursuant to Section 3.035 of Appendix H; D. Habitat management and mitigation plan pursuant to Section 3.037 of Appendix H; E. A drainage and erosion control plan pursuant to Section 1.100 of Appendix H; F. A grading and excavation plan pursuant to Section 1.120 of Appendix H.

22

3.050 General Standards. The following minimum standards shall apply to all development activities occurring within designated habitat conservation areas and their associated buffers.

A. Except as permitted by this chapter habitat conservation areas and buffers will be left undisturbed, unless the development proposal demonstrates that impacts to the habitat conservation area and/or buffer are unavoidable, demonstrated by compliance with Section 3.037F of Appendix H. Impacts must be addressed with appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures as determined on a site-specific basis in conformance with Section 3.037 of Appendix H.

B. Habitat Conservation Areas.

1. Development occurring within a 1,000-foot radius of a state or federal threatened, endangered, or sensitive species den, nesting, or breeding site, migration corridors or feeding areas of terrestrial species shall require a habitat management and mitigation plan.

2. Cliff, cave, and talus slope habitats shall have at least a 50-foot buffer for safety and resource protection.

3. Bald Eagles: an approved bald eagle management plan by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife meeting the requirement and guidelines of the Bald Eagle Protection Rules, WAC 232-12-292, as amended, satisfies the requirements of a habitat management and/or mitigation plan.

4. Rocky Mountain Mule Deer Habitat: habitat connectivity and migration corridors for mule deer shall be considered in habitat management and/or mitigation plans.

5. Development in or over all surface waters shall require a habitat mitigation plan. 6. Aquatic and High QualityRiparian Habitat Conservation Protection:

a. Zone 1 – Aquatic Habitat buffers (Zone 1 buffer) are applicable to the Columbia River, lakes, and ponds greater than 20 acres (>20 acres & > 6 feet in depth), as well as perennial and intermittent streams within shoreline jurisdiction. Zone 1 is established to protect aquatic habitat resources and protect water quality, by the filtering and uptake of chemical pollutants, moderating temperature and reducing sediment reaching the shoreline ordinary high water mark.

b.a. Zone 2 – High Quality Habitat Conservation buffers (Zone 2 buffer), where applicable, are additive to the landward edge of Zone 1 buffers and are established to protect, preserve, and even provide opportunity to restore biologically diverse core terrestrial habitat, which may include both riparian and upland habitat. An applicant or property owner who proposes a use or development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall hire a qualified biologist to determine if the site characteristics warrant an increase in buffer size to protect onsite ecological functions and values. The biologist shall prepare and submit a report which includes at a minimum the following items:

(1) Information documenting the described in Section 3.037(H)(1-6,10) of Appendix H.

23

(2) Current date stamped color photographs of the lineal width of the entire shoreline that depict habitat conditions within the shoreline jurisdiction, landward of the Aquatic environment designation.

(3)(2) A written certified determination by the biologist as to whether a proposed high-intensity land use (defined by Section 3.050(B)6.a.3) development will result in a net loss of ecological functions and values to the riparian buffer.any one of the criteria noted below apply to the project site:

a) The initial 50% of Zone 1 is dominated by native riparian shrubs and/or trees, shrub-steppe habitat with connectivity to significant blocks of other shrub-steppe habitat, or a combination thereof;

b) A proposed high-intensity land use (defined by Section 3.050(B)6.b.5) development will result in a net loss of ecological functions and values to the riparian buffer Zone 1;

c) If Sixty-five (65) percent of Zone 1 contains slopes which exceed 15% for the rural conservancy, urban conservancy, shoreline residential, or natural shoreline environment designations;

d) If fifty (50) percent of Zone 1 contains slopes which exceed 15% for perennial streams, intermittent streams, or the high intensity environment designation.

(4) If any one of the criteria in subsection 3.050B(6)(b)(3)a-d of Appendix H apply to the site, an addition of the Zone 2 buffer shall be required. If the only qualifying criterion is slope (subsection 3.050B(6)(b)(3)c or d of Appendix H), a 25 foot buffer shall be added to the Zone 1 buffer area in order to offer further water quality protection due to increase chemical and sediment pollutant runoff during storm events. As an alternative to the 25 foot water quality protection buffer, the property owner may submit an engineered stormwater pollution prevention plan & stormwater management plan for the development, for review and approval consistent with the best management practices of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington, as amended. If any one (1) qualifying criteria (subsection 3.050B(6)(b)(3)a or b of Appendix H), or any combination of criteria (subsection 3.050B(6)(b)(3)a-d of Appendix H) is identified, then a minimum 50-foot buffer shall be added to the Zone 1 buffer area.

(5)(3) A description of proposed management practices that high intensity use(s) or development(s) will use to protect the buffer area after the project site has been fully developed, to ensure no net loss of ecological function. High intensity uses include commercial, industrial, institutional, retail sales, residential (greater than 1 unit/acre except single family residential development on existing legal lots of record in place at the time of adoption of this Program), conversion from non-agricultural lands to high-intensity commercial agriculture (dairies, nurseries, hobby farms, feed mills,

24

packing plants, agricultural processing plants or warehouses for the purposes of processing, packing, and storage of agricultural products), and high-intensity recreation (golf courses, ball fields). Management practices may include, but are not limited to the following techniques:

a) Preservation of critically important plants and trees, b) Limitation of access to the habitat conservation area, c) Seasonal restriction of construction activities, d) Direct lights away from the habitat conservation area and buffer, e) Locate facilities that generate substantial noise away from the habitat

conservation area and buffer, f) Establish covenants that limit the use of pesticides within the buffer or habitat area, g) Implement integrated pest management programs, h) Post signs at the outer edge of the habitat conservation area or buffer to clearly

indicate the location of the critical area according to the direction of the county, i) Plant buffer with native vegetation appropriate for the region to create screens or

barriers to noise, light, human intrusion and discourage domestic animal intrusion, j) Use low impact development where appropriate.

A property owner may choose to default to the maximum combined Zone 1 + Zone 2 buffer in lieu of hiring a biologist to conduct site specific analysis. The default buffer width for perennial and intermittent streams in any environment designation shall be 125 feet. The default buffer width for the high intensity buffer environment designation shall be 125 feet. The default buffer width for rural conservancy, shoreline residential and the urban conservancy environment designations shall be 150 feet. The default buffer width for the natural environment designation shall be 200 feet.

c.b. Except as provided in this Program, the following minimum riparian buffer widths shall apply within the shoreline environment designations administered by Douglas County. Provisions have been established for structural setbacks, measured from the landward edge of the riparian buffer zones, established in Section 5.13, Bulk and Dimensional Standards, of this Program. Buffer widths include:

Environment Designations

Zone 1Riparian

Buffer Width Zone 2

Perennial and intermittent streams in all environment designations 75 50 feet +0-50 feet

High Intensity 75 50 feet +0-50 feet

Rural Conservancy, Shoreline Residential, Urban Conservancy 100 75 feet +0-50 feet

Natural 150 100 feet +0-50 feet

25

(1) Building setbacks shall not apply where existing vegetation within the critical area buffer is part of a legally established recreational or residential development, including legally established non-conforming residential development, or prior agricultural use and is characterized by maintained landscaped lawn, or other area of disturbed vegetation with minimal habitat function, as determined by the Administrator. Temporary fencing of the buffer area during construction activities shall still be required consistent with 3.050 C (2).

(2) Where a legally established road, railway, parking area, or other type of continuous impervious development crosses or extends along a shoreline or critical area buffer and is wider than 20 feet, the Administrator may approve a modification of the minimum required buffer width to the waterward edge of the improved continuous development provided the upland side of the continuous development area does not provide shoreline buffer function.

C. Appropriate buffer areas shall be maintained between all permitted uses and activities and designated habitat conservation areas.

1. All buffers shall be measured from the habitat edge, as established by the approved habitat boundary survey. Zone 1 buffers shall be measured horizontally on both sides of the stream or waterbody landward of the ordinary high water mark.

2. All buffer areas shall be temporarily fenced between the construction activity and the buffer with a highly visible and durable protective barrier during construction to prevent access and protect the designated habitat conservation area and associated buffer. The Administrator may waive this requirement if an alternative to fencing which achieves the same objective is proposed and approved.

3. Except as otherwise allowed, buffers shall be retained in their natural condition. Any habitat created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved habitat alterations shall have the standard buffer required for the type of habitat created, restored, or enhanced.

4. The width of the buffer shall be increased by the Administrator for a development project on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect the designated habitat conservation area function and value. The determination shall be based on site-specific and project-related conditions, which include without limitation:

a. The designated habitat conservation area is used for feeding, nesting, and resting by species proposed or listed by the federal or state government as endangered, threatened, sensitive, candidate, monitor or critical; or if it is an outstanding potential habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees;

b. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse habitat impacts;

26

c. The report developed in compliance with Section 3.050(B)(6) of Appendix H indicates that the proposed high-intensity land use/ development would result in a net decrease in the Zone 1 + Zone 2riparian buffer’s functions and values.

D. Buffer Width Averaging. The total required (Zone 1 + Zone 2)riparian buffer widths may be modified by the Administrator for a development on existing legal lots of record in place at the time of adoption of this Program, by averaging buffer widths based on a report submitted by the applicant and prepared by a qualified professional biologist. Buffer width averaging shall only be allowed where the applicant demonstrates all of the following:

1. Averaging is necessary to avoid an extraordinary hardship to the applicant caused by circumstances peculiar to the property;

2. The designated habitat conservation area contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation;

3. The width averaging shall not adversely affect the designated habitat conservation area and buffer’s functional value;

4. The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging.

5. The minimum buffer width at its narrowest point shall not be less than seventy-five (75) percent of the buffer width established under Section 3.050.B of Appendix H.

6. Sites which have had buffer widths reduced or modified by any prior action administered by Douglas County are not eligible for the provisions of this section. Sites which utilize this provision are not eligible for any future buffer width reductions, under any provision of this Program, except as administered under Section 6.8 Variances, of this Program.

7. The variation of buffer widths on a site, via buffer width averaging, must be supported by best available science as demonstrated by the submittal and approval of a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area management and mitigation plan in conformance with Section 3.037 of Appendix H.

E. Administrative Buffer Reduction. The Administrator shall have the authority to reduce buffer width(s) established in Section 3.050(B)(6) of Appendix H on a case-by-case basis for single family dwelling units which would be placed on existing legal lots of record in place at the time of adoption of this Program; provided that the general standards for avoidance and minimization per Section 3.037F of Appendix H shall apply, and when the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that all of the following criteria have been met:

1. The buffer reduction shall not result in a net loss of functions of the habitat conservation area or buffer.

2. The maximum buffer width reduction allowed shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the total required buffer established in Section 3.050(B)(6) of Appendix H.

27

3. The buffer width reduction is contingent upon the submittal and approval of a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area management and mitigation plan in conformance with Section 3.037 of Appendix H.

4. Sites which have had buffer widths reduced or modified by any prior action administered by Douglas County are not eligible for the provisions of this section. Sites which utilize this provision are not eligible for any future buffer width reductions, under any provision of this Program, except as administered under Section 6.8 Variances, of this Program.


A. Stream Crossings. Expansion or construction of stream crossings may be authorized within a designated habitat conservation area and buffer, subject to the following minimum standards:

1. Bridges are required for streams which support salmonids; 2. All crossings using culverts shall use superspan or oversize culverts; 3. Crossings shall not occur in salmonid spawning areas unless no other feasible crossing site

exists; 4. Bridge piers or abutments shall not be placed in either the floodway or between the ordinary

high water marks unless no other feasible alternative placement exists; 5. Crossings shall not diminish flood carrying capacity; and 6. Crossings shall serve multiple properties whenever possible.

B. Water dependent uses, as defined by this Program, may be located within a habitat conservation area or buffer when the applicant or property owner can demonstrate compliance with Section 3.037 of Appendix H.

C. Construction of public, private community and private trails and trail-related facilities, such as picnic tables, benches, interpretive centers and signs, viewing platforms, and campsites may be authorized within designated resource lands and critical areas, subject to the following minimum standards:

1. Trail facilities shall, to the extent feasible, be placed on existing road grades, utility corridors, or any other previously disturbed areas;

2. Trail facilities shall minimize the removal of trees, shrubs, snags, and important habitat features. Vegetation management performed in accordance with best management practices as part of ongoing maintenance to eliminate a hazard to trail users is considered consistent with this standard;

3. Viewing platforms, interpretive centers, campsites, picnic areas, benches and their associated access shall be designed and located to minimize disturbance of wildlife and/or critical characteristics of the affected conservation area;

28

4. All facilities shall be constructed with materials complementary to the surrounding environment;

5. Trail facilities that parallel the shoreline may be located in the outer 25 percent of the buffer area; and

a. Commercial and public trails shall not exceed 10 feet in width b. Private trails shall not exceed 4 feet in width;

6. Except as provided in C.5 above, the width of commercial and public trails shall be consistent with Section 1020.06(1) of the Washington State Design Manual as in now exists or may hereafter be amended;

7. Trails that provide direct shoreline access shall not exceed 4 feet in width and shall be kept to the minimum number necessary to serve the intended purpose;

8. Review and analysis of a proposed trail facility shall demonstrate no net loss of ecological functions and values in conformance with this chapter; and

9. Trail facilities shall not be exempt from special report requirements, as may be required by this chapter.

D. Developments authorized within a designated habitat conservation area or buffer shall comply with the following minimum standards:

1. A habitat management and mitigation plan shall be required. 2. Designated habitat conservation areas and their associated buffers shall be delineated and

disclosed on final plats, maps, documents, etc., as critical area tracts, nonbuildable lots, buffer areas or common areas. Ownership and control may be transferred to a homeowner’s association or designated as an easement or covenant encumbering the property.

3. All lots within a major subdivision, short plat or binding site plan shall have the outer edge of all required buffers clearly marked on site with permanent buffer edge markers. Buffer markers may be either buffer signs or steel posts painted with a standard color and label, as approved by the Administrator. The markers shall be field verified by the surveyor or biologist of record prior to final plat approval. Each lot shall contain a minimum of three buffer area markers located at the landward edge of the buffer perimeter for each habitat type; one located at each side property line and one midway between side property lines. Covenants for the subdivision shall incorporate a requirement stating that buffer area markers shall not be removed, or relocated, except as a may be approved by the Administrator.

4. Residential developments with the potential for two or more dwelling units shall disclose on the face of the plat whether the development will be served by joint use or community dock facilities or a combination thereof. Access easements and dock locations shall be identified by a qualified professional biologist who will address the standards of Section 3.037F of Appendix H. The identification of access easements and dock locations is not a substitute for

29

permitting required in order to develop moorage facilities and in no way guarantees such an approval.

E. View Corridors. The development or maintenance of view corridors can provide the general public and property owners of single family residences, opportunities for visual access to water bodies associated with shoreline lots. One view corridor may be permitted per lot, when consistent with the provisions of this Chapter. A mitigation and management plan consistent with Section 3.037 of Appendix H must be submitted for review and approval; either with a complete building permit application for a new single family residence or associated with an existing single family residence.

1. In addition to the submittal of a complete mitigation and management plan, an applicant must submit the following materials:

a. A signed Douglas County Master Application form by the property owner of the shoreline proposed for vegetation alterations.

b. A scaled graphic which demonstrates a side, top and bottom parameter for the view corridor with existing vegetation and proposed alterations. The view corridor shall be limited to 25% of the width of the lot, or 25 feet, whichever distance is less.

c. A graphic and/or site photos for the entire shoreline frontage which demonstrates that the homesite and proposed or existing home does or will not when constructed have a view corridor of the water body, taking into account site topography and the location of shoreline vegetation on the parcel.

2. Applications for view corridors must also be consistent with the following standards:

a. Native vegetation removal shall be prohibited. b. Pruning of native vegetation shall not exceed 30% of a tree’s limbs, and shrubs shall not

be pruned to a height less than 6 feet. No tree topping shall occur. Pruning of vegetation waterward of the ordinary high water mark is prohibited.

c. Non-native vegetation within a view corridor may be removed when the mitigation and management plan can demonstrate a net gain in site functions, and where impacts are mitigated at a ratio of 2:1.

d. Whenever possible, view corridors shall be located in areas dominated with non-native vegetation and invasive species.

e. Pruning shall be done in a manner that shall ensure the continued survival of vegetation. f. The applicant’s biologist shall clearly establish that fragmentation of fish and wildlife

habitat will not occur, and that there is not a net loss of site ecological functions. g. View corridors are not permitted in the natural environment designation. h. A view corridor may be issued once for a property. No additional vegetation pruning for

the view corridor is authorized except as may be permitted to maintain the approved view corridor from the regrowth of pruned limbs. Limitations and guidelines for this

30

maintenance shall be established in the mitigation and management plan by the applicant’s biologist, to be reviewed and approved by the Administrator.

i. Sites which have had buffer widths reduced or modified by any prior action administered by Douglas County are not eligible for the provisions of this section. Sites which utilize this provision are not eligible for any future buffer width reductions, under any provision of this Program, except as administered under Section 6.8 Variances, of this Program.

3.070 Variances. Applicants who are unable to comply with the specific dimensional or performance standards of this chapter may seek approval pursuant to the variance standards of Section 6.8 Variances of this Program, in addition to satisfying the requirements identified below:

A. The project includes mitigation for unavoidable critical area and buffer impacts, consistent with the requirements of Section 3.037 of Appendix H.

B. The applicant can clearly demonstrate compliance with the avoidance and minimization standards established in subsection 3.037F of Appendix H.

Chapter 4 Critical Areas – Geologically Hazardous Areas

4.010 Permitted Uses and Activities. Uses and activities allowed within designated geologically hazardous areas are those uses permitted by the Douglas County Regional Shoreline Master Program, subject to the provisions of this chapter.

4.020 Classification. A. All geologically hazardous areas shall be classified by Douglas County according to the level of

risk associated with the hazardous area as established through an approved geologic hazard risk assessment and/or a geotechnical report submitted by the applicant in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Douglas County may use on-site inspections and the information sources identified in Section 1.030 of Appendix H as guidance in identifying the presence of potential geologically hazardous areas.

B. Geologically hazardous areas in Douglas County shall be classified according to the following system:

1. Known or suspected risk; 2. No risk; and 3. Risk unknown.

C. Any land containing soils, geology or slopes that meet any of the following criteria shall be classified as having a known or suspected risk of being geologically hazardous areas:

1. Areas identified by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a “severe” rill and inter-rill erosion hazard;

31

2. Areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include any areas susceptible because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors. Example of these may include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Areas of historic failures, such as:

(1) Those areas delineated by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a “severe” limitation for building site development;

(2) Those areas mapped as class u (unstable), uos (unstable old slides), and urs (unstable recent slides) in the department of ecology coastal zone atlas; or

(3) Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, lahars, or landslides on maps published as the United States Geological Survey or Department of Natural Resources division of geology and earth resources.

b. Areas with all three of the following characteristics:

(1) Slopes steeper than fifteen percent; (2) Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment

overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock; and (3) Springs or ground water seepage;

c. Areas that have shown movement during the Holocene epoch or which are underlain or covered by mass wastage debris of that epoch;

d. Slopes that are parallel or sub-parallel to planes of weakness (such as bedding planes, joint systems, and fault planes) in subsurface materials;

e. Slopes having gradients steeper than eighty percent subject to rockfall during seismic shaking;

f. Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action;

g. Areas that show evidence of, or are at risk from snow avalanches; h. Areas located in a canyon or on an active alluvial fan, presently or potentially subject to

inundation by debris flows or catastrophic flooding; and i. Any area with a slope of 45% or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten or more feet

except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least ten feet of vertical relief.

3. Areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. One indicator of potential for future earthquake damage is a record of earthquake damage in the past. Ground shaking is the primary cause of earthquake damage in Washington. The strength of ground shaking is primarily affected by:

32

a. The magnitude of an earthquake; b. The distance from the source of an earthquake; c. The type of thickness of geologic materials at the surface; and d. The type of subsurface geologic structure.

4. Other geological events:

a. Volcanic hazard areas shall include areas subject to pyroclastic flows, lava flows, debris avalanche, inundation by debris flows, mudflows, or related flooding resulting from volcanic activity.

b. Mine hazard areas are those areas underlain by, adjacent to, or affected by mine workings such as adits, gangways, tunnels, drifts, or airshafts. Factors that should be considered include: Proximity to development, depth from ground surface to the mine working, and geologic material.

4.030 Designation. All existing areas of unincorporated Douglas County classified as stated in Section 4.020 of Appendix H, as determined by the review authority, are designated as geologically hazardous areas.

4.040 Determination Process—Geologically Hazardous Area. Douglas County shall review each development permit application to determine if the provisions of this chapter shall be initiated. In making the determination, the County may use any resources identified in Section 1.030 of Appendix H, as well as any previously completed special reports conducted in the vicinity of the subject proposal. The following progressive steps shall occur upon a determination by the county that a geologically hazardous area may exist on a site proposed for a development permit:

A. Step One. Douglas County staff shall determine if there is any possible geologically hazardous area on-site designated by Section 4.030 of Appendix H. This determination shall be made following a review of information available and a site inspection if appropriate. If no hazard area is determined to be present, this chapter shall not apply to the review of the proposed development.

B. Step Two. If it is determined that a geologically hazardous area may be present, the applicant shall submit a geologic hazard area risk assessment prepared by an engineer or a geologist. The risk assessment shall include a description of the geology of the site and the proposed development; an assessment of the potential impact the project may have on the geologic hazard; an assessment of what potential impact the geologic hazard may have on the project; appropriate mitigation measures, if any; and a conclusion as to whether further analysis is necessary. The assessment shall be signed by and bear the seal of the engineer or geologist that prepared it. No further analysis shall be required if the geologic hazard area risk assessment concludes that there is no geologic hazard present on the site, nor will the project affect or be affected by any potential geologic hazards that may be nearby.

33

C. Step Three. If the professional preparing the risk assessment in step two concludes that further analysis is necessary, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.110 and 4.040D of Appendix H.

D. The geotechnical report shall include a certification from the engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer preparing the report, including the professionals stamp and signature. The geotechnical report shall include the following:

1. A description of the geology of the site; 2. Conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the

proposed development, 3. Conclusions and recommendations on the suitability of the site to be developed; 4. An evaluation of the actual presence of geologic conditions giving rise to the geologic

hazard; 5. An evaluation of the safety of the proposed project; 6. Identification of construction practices, monitoring programs and other mitigation measures

necessary; 7. A bibliography of scientific citations shall be included as necessary; 8. A statement regarding:

a. The risk of damage from the project, both on and off site; b. Whether or not the project will materially increase the risk of occurrence of the hazard; and c. The specific measures incorporated into the design and operational plan of the project to

eliminate or reduce the risk of damage due to the hazard.

E. All mitigation measures, construction techniques, recommendations and technical specifications provided in the geotechnical report shall be applied during the implementation of the proposal. The engineer of record shall submit sealed verification at the conclusion of construction that development occurred in conformance with the approved plans.

F. A proposed development cannot be approved if it is determined by the geotechnical report that either the proposed development or adjacent properties will be at risk of damage from the geologic hazard, or that the project will increase the risk of occurrence of the hazard, and there are no adequate mitigation measures to alleviate the risks.

Chapter 5 Critical Areas – Aquifer Recharge Areas

5.010 Permitted Uses and Activities. Uses and activities permitted within designated aquifer recharge areas are those that are authorized in the Douglas County Regional Master Program, subject to the provisions of this chapter.

34

5.020 Classification. All aquifer recharge areas shall be classified by Douglas County as any area located within the 10-year capture zone identified by the Douglas County wellhead protection program.

5.030 Designation. All existing areas of unincorporated Douglas County classified as stated in Section 5.020 of Appendix H of this chapter, as determined by the review authority, are hereby designated as aquifer recharge areas. The provisions of this chapter are specific to the following described areas:

Area A (Regional Wellfield) – Commencing at the intersection of the Douglas County Boundary with a westerly extension of the north line of Government Lot 8 in Section 35, Township 24 North, Range 20 East, W.M., said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION. Thence easterly along said extended north line to the east shoreline of the Columbia River. Thence continuing easterly along the north line of said Government Lot 8 to the northwest corner of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 35. Thence continuing easterly along the north line of said Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter to the centerline of SR-97. Thence northeasterly along said centerline to the east line of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 36, Township 24 North, Range 20 East, W.M. Thence northerly along said east line to the southeast corner of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 36. Thence continuing northerly along the east line of said Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter to the southwest corner of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 36. Thence easterly along the south line of said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter to the east line of the west half of said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter. Thence northerly along said east line to the shoreline of the Columbia River. Thence continuing northerly on a northerly extension of said east line to an intersection with the Douglas County Boundary and the END OF THIS DESCRIPTION.

Area B (19th Street Wellfield) – Commencing at the intersection of the Douglas County Boundary with a westerly extension of the south line of Government Lot 9 in Section 34, Township 23 North, Range 20 East, W.M., said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION. Thence easterly along said westerly extension to the shoreline of the Columbia River. Thence continuing easterly along the south line of said Government Lot 9 to the southeast corner of said Section 34. Thence easterly along the south line of Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 20 East, W.M. to an intersection with a southerly extension of the easterly line of Lot 56, East Wenatchee Land Company’s (EWLC) Plat of Sections 34 and 35, Township 23 North, Range 20 East, W.M. Thence northerly along said southerly extension to the northeast corner of said Lot 56. Thence westerly along the north line of said Lot 56 to the northwest corner of said Lot 56 and the southwest corner of Lot 41, said EWLC plat. Thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 41 and Lot 40, said EWLC plat to the northwest corner of said Lot 40. Thence westerly to the southeast corner of Lot 32, said EWLC plat. Thence westerly along the south line of said Lot 32 and Lot 31, said EWLC plat, to the southwest

35

corner of said Lot 31. Thence westerly along a westerly extension of the south line of said Lot 31 to the shoreline of the Columbia River. Thence continuing westerly along said westerly extension to the Douglas County Boundary. Thence southeasterly along said Douglas County Boundary to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

Area C (Kentucky Street Wellfield) – Commencing at the intersection of the Douglas County Boundary with a southerly extension of the east line of Lot 364, East Wenatchee Land Company’s (EWLC) Plat of Section 19, Township 22 North, Range 21 East, W.M., said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION. Thence northerly along said southerly extension to the shoreline of the Columbia River. Thence continuing northerly along the east line of said Lot 36 and the east line of Lots 29, 20, 13 and 4, said EWLC plat of Section 19, to the northeast corner of said Lot 4. Thence northerly to the southeast corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 22 North, Range 21 East, W.M. Thence northerly along the east line of the West half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 18 to the northeast corner of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 18. Thence westerly along the north line of said Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter to the northwest corner of said section subdivision. Thence westerly to the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 4, Plat of Eden Orchard Tracts. Thence westerly along the north line of said Lot 1 to the northwest corner of said Lot 1. Thence northerly to the southeast corner of Lot 3, Block 1, said Plat of Eden Orchard Tracts. Thence northerly along the east line of said Lot 3 to the northeast corner of said Lot 3. Thence westerly along the north line of said Lot 3 to the northwest corner of said Lot 3. Thence westerly to the northeast corner of Lot 4, Block 2, said Plat of Eden Orchard Tracts. Thence westerly along the north line of said Lot 4 and Lot 3, Block 2, said Plat of Eden Orchard Tracts, to the northwest corner of said Lot 3. Thence southerly along the west line of said Lot 3 to the southwest corner of said Lot 3. Thence westerly to the northeast corner of Lot 49, East Wenatchee Land Company’s (EWLC) Plat of Section 13, Township 22 North, Range 20 East, W.M. Thence westerly along the north line of said Lot 49 and Lot 50, said EWLC plat of Section 13, to the northwest corner of said Lot 50. Thence southerly along the west line of said Lot 50 to the southwest corner of said Lot 50 and the northeast corner of Lot 62, said EWLC plat of Section 13. Thence westerly along the north line of said Lot 62 and the north line of Lot 61, said EWLC plat of Section 13, to the northwest corner of said Lot 61. Thence southerly along the west line of said Lot 61 to the southwest corner of said Lot 61. Thence southerly to the northwest corner of the Northeast quarter of Section 24, Township 22 North, Range 20 East, W.M. Thence southerly along the west line of said Northeast quarter to the shoreline of the Columbia River. Thence continuing southerly along said west line to an intersection with the Douglas County Boundary. Thence southeasterly along said Douglas County Boundary to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

Bridgeport Area A (City of Bridgeport Wellhead Protection Area Well No. 1, 2, and 3) – Commencing at the intersection of the Douglas County boundary, the Columbia River, and the west right of-way

36

line of SR 17 in the Northeast one quarter of Section 23, Township 29 North, Range 25 East, WM. Douglas County; said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION. Thence southwesterly to the intersection of the south right-of-way line of SR 17 and SR 173. Thence westerly along the south right-of-way line of SR 173 to the intersection of 27 Street. Thence southwesterly along the centerline of 27 Street to the centerline of Monroe Avenue. Thence a southwesterly direction to the northeast corner of Lot 22 in the Cornehl Subdivision, Douglas County. Thence continuing in a westerly direction along to the intersection of the City of Bridgeport municipal boundary and section line between Sections 22 and 23 within Township 29 North, Range 25 East, WM. Thence continuing in a westerly direction along the Bridgeport municipal boundary approximately 1,400 feet to the sixteenth line of Section 22 in Township 29 North Range 25 East, WM. Thence continuing in a westerly direction to the intersection of Bridgeport municipal boundary and the center point between Section 15 and 22 in Township 29 North, Range 25 East. WM. Thence running in a northerly direction to the intersection of the Bridgeport municipal boundary and the southwest corner of Lot 6 Browns First Addition in the northwest one quarter of Section 15 in Township 29 North, Range 25 East, WM. Thence continuing in a northerly direction to the intersection of the northwest property boundary of Lot 3 Browns First Addition and SR 173. Thence running in a northwesterly direction between Lots 2 and 3 to the centerline of Columbia Avenue and 3rd Street. Thence running in a northeasterly direction along the centerline of 3rd Street to the intersection of the Douglas County boundary and the Columbia River. Thence running in a southwesterly direction along the Columbia River to the true point of beginning.

5.040 Application Requirements. Development permit applications shall provide appropriate information on forms provided by the review authority. Additional special reports or information to identify potential impacts and mitigation measures to aquifer recharge areas may be required if deemed necessary by the review authority.

5.050 General Standards. The following minimum standards shall apply to all development activities occurring within designated aquifer recharge areas.

A. Development activities within an aquifer recharge area shall be designed, developed, and operated in a manner that will not potentially degrade Douglas County groundwater resources.

B. Any changes in land use or type of new facilities where substances of moderate risk are used, stored, treated, or handled; or which produce moderate risk waste shall be designed to prevent the release of any such materials into the groundwater.

C. The following uses and activities shall be prohibited within a designated aquifer recharge area:

1. The conversion of heating systems to fuel oil or the installation of new fuel oil heating systems; 2. Accumulation of junk materials; 3. Hazardous substance treatment, storage, and disposal facilities;

37

4. The negligent transportation of hazardous substances materials; 5. Solid waste and inert debris landfills, transfer stations, recycling facilities; 6. Petroleum product pipelines; 7. Class I, II, III, IV and V underground injection wells, except 5D2 storm drainage wells, 5G30

special drainage wells and 5R21 aquifer recharge wells as identified by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act;

8. Mineral extraction.


A. Aboveground Storage Tanks or Vaults. Construction of an aboveground storage tank or vault, regardless of the storage capacity, for the storage of moderate substances or dangerous wastes as defined by WAC 173-303 may be authorized subject to the following standards:

1. The design of the storage tank or vault shall include an impervious containment area enclosing or underlying the tank, which is large enough to contain one hundred twenty percent of the volume of the tank.

2. Leak and release detection equipment shall be installed on all tanks and vaults.

B. Underground Storage Tanks and Vaults. Construction of an underground storage tank or vault, regardless of the storage capacity, for the storage of moderate substances or dangerous wastes as defined by WAC 173-303 may be authorized subject to the following standards:

1. The design of the storage tank or vault shall include an impervious containment area enclosing or underlying the tank, which is large enough to contain one hundred twenty percent of the volume of the tank.

2. All storage tanks and vaults shall either be cathodically protected against corrosion, constructed of noncorrosive materials, or steel clad with noncorrosive materials.

3. The lining of all tanks and vaults shall be compatible to the substance to be stored. 4. Leak and release detection equipment shall be installed on all tanks and vaults.

C. Stormwater Standards and Requirements for 5D2 "Stormwater Drainage Wells"; 5G30 "Special Drainage Wells" and 5R21 "Aquifer Recharge Wells" as Identified by the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

1. Soil Infiltration.

a. Infiltration rates less than 2.4 inches per hour shall construct and maintain a pre-settling basin prior to discharge.

b. Infiltration rates greater than or equal to 2.4 inches per hour shall provide water quality treatment using best management practices (BMP) prior to discharging to unsaturated soils.

38

2. Detention facilities shall be designed to reduce peak discharge and improve water quality.

a. Detention volumes are represented by the area between the predeveloped and developed hydrograph for the county design storm. The minimum required to be retained in the detention basin before outfall to a stormwater drywell shall not exceed a volume for a 6-month, 24-hour storm.

b. Inlet and outlets placements shall be placed as far apart as possible to minimize short circuiting of the facility.

c. All detention basins shall have an emergency overflow so the facility will not be damaged if runoff is exceeded.

3. Vegetated filter areas are vegetated channels that allow overland flow which effectively treats stormwater runoff.

a. Flow depths shall not exceed six inches in depth and the preferred slope is two to four percent. Check dams with a 6- to 12-inch vertical drop shall be installed for slopes of four to six percent.

b. The minimum length shall not be less than two linear feet. c. The maximum cross section shall not exceed three horizontal units to one vertical unit (3:1). d. The site shall be improved with a vegetative cover suitable for the filter area. Vegetation

shall be permanently maintained in a manner acceptable to the county engineer.

4. Operation and Maintenance.

a. The inlet flow spreader shall be kept free of leaves, rocks, and other debris. b. Biofilters planted in grasses shall be mowed regularly to promote growth and pollutant

uptake. c. Biofilters shall be periodically checked and sediments shall be removed by hand

whenever sedimentation covers vegetation or begins to reduce the biofilter’s capacity. Damaged areas shall be reseeded.

D. Surface Impoundments. Surface impoundments, defined by Chapter 173-303 WAC, shall be designed by a professional engineer and constructed with an impermeable liner and other components as appropriate to prevent discharge of any material on the ground surface and/or into the groundwater system. Surface impoundments shall be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable governing law, and have a minimum excess capacity equal to one hundred twenty percent of the projected volume of liquid to be contained including intentional and unintentional stormwater capture.

E. Minor Developments. All minor developments, which are processed according to Chapter 7, subsection 7.3.020 of this Program, proposed within an aquifer recharge area shall comply with the following standards:

39

1. Connection to a public sanitary sewer system or an approved community sewer system shall be required. If connection to sanitary sewer is not feasible, on-site septic systems proposed on lots of record legally existing on the date this chapter was enacted are permitted provided:

a. The public health officer has designated the aquifer recharge area as an "area of special concern" in accordance with WAC 246-272-21501.

b. The type of on-site system is approved by the Chelan-Douglas Health District upon finding that the design of the system will not be detrimental to the community water supply.

c. The property owner shall enter a no protest agreement with the Douglas County Sewer District, or other sanitary sewer provider as appropriate to the property location, agreeing to not protest the formation of a local improvement district for the extension of sanitary sewer. This agreement shall be recorded with the Douglas County Auditor.

2. The connection to an approved public water service shall be required.

F. Major Developments. All major developments processed according to Chapter 7, subsection 7.3.030 or 7.3.040 of this Program authorized within an aquifer recharge area shall comply with the following minimum standards:

1. Connection to a public sanitary sewer system or an approved community sewer system shall be required unless the public health officer has designated the aquifer recharge area as an "area of special concern" in accordance with WAC 246-272-21501.

2. Connection to an approved public water system shall be required. 3. All existing wells located on the subject property shall either be properly abandoned in

accordance with the requirements of the Chelan-Douglas Health District and the Department of Ecology or designated for irrigation purposes only. If an existing well is designated for irrigation purposes, then the following shall apply:

a. Evidence of a water right issued by the State of Washington for the use of the well shall be presented to the review authority. An application for a water right is not acceptable evidence of an actual right to appropriate water.

b. Certification from the public health officer stating that the well is properly constructed and sealed to prevent any contaminants from entering the wellhead shall be submitted to the review authority.

4. Stormwater detention and retention facilities shall be designed using best available science and management practices to separate chemical and biological pollutants from the water prior to infiltration. The use of injection wells is prohibited in accordance with Section 5.050(C) of Appendix H.

5. An analysis shall be conducted to assess the impact to groundwater quality from the potential of nitrate loading to the groundwater.

6. Areas highly susceptible of transporting contaminants to the groundwater (i.e., natural drainages, springs, wetlands, etc.), as determined by the review authority, shall be designated

40

as open space. All impervious surfaces shall maintain a 15-foot setback from areas identified as being highly susceptible and no amount of stormwater runoff shall be directed towards the susceptible area(s).

G. Parks, Schools and Recreation Facilities. Fertilizer and pesticide management practices of schools, parks, other recreation facilities and similar uses shall use best management practices as prescribed by the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Services.

H. All major and minor developments shall have an informational note placed on the face of plat stating "This subdivision is located within an aquifer recharge area. Best management practices shall be used for the containment of stormwater and the application of pesticides and fertilizers."

Chapter 6 – Flood Damage Prevention

6.010 Purpose and Objectives. A. It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, comply

with applicable state law and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to:

1. Protect human life and health; 2. Minimize expenditure of public money and costly flood control projects; 3. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally

undertaken at the expense of the general public; 4. Minimize prolonged business interruptions; 5. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric,

telephone and sewer lines, roads and bridges located in areas of flood hazard; 6. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development in areas of

flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas; 7. Provide a means by which potential purchasers of property can determine if that property is

in an area of flood hazard; and 8. Ensure that those who occupy the areas of flood hazard assume responsibility for their

actions.

B. Methods of Reducing Flood Losses. In order to accomplish its purposes, this chapter includes methods and provisions for:

1. Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities;

2. Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities that serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction;

3. Controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel floodwaters;

41

4. Controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development, which may increase flood damage; and

5. Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers, which will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas.

6.020 Definitions. Words, terms, and phrases used in this chapter are defined in Chapter 8 Definitions, of this Program and supplemented herein. Unless specifically defined, words or phrases used in this chapter shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this chapter it’s most reasonable application.

A. “Area of shallow flooding” means a designated AO, or AH Zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The base flood depths range from one to three feet; a clearly defined channel does not exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; and, velocity flow may be evident. AO is characterized as sheet flow and AH indicates ponding.

B. “Area of special flood hazard” means the land in the floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Designation on maps always includes the letter A.

C. “Basement” means any area of a building or structure having a floor that is subgrade, or below ground level, on all sides.

D. “Critical facility” means a facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might be too great. Critical facilities include, but are not limited to, schools, nursing homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, police facilities, fire protection facilities, emergency response facilities, and installations which produce, use, or store hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste.

E. “Elevated building” means, for insurance purposes, a nonbasement building which has its lowest elevated floor raised aboveground level by foundation walls, shear walls, post, piers, pilings, or columns.

F. “Existing manufactured home park or subdivision” means a manufactured home park subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before July 13, 1987.

G. “Expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision” means the preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads).

H. “Lowest floor” means the lowest floor or the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building’s lowest floor, provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the

42

applicable non-elevation design requirements of this chapter found at Section 6.050(B)(1)(b) of Appendix H.

I. “New construction” means structures for which the “start of construction” commenced on or after the effective date of the requirements established in this chapter.

J. “New manufactured home park or subdivision” means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after July 13, 1987.

K. “Start of construction” includes substantial improvement, and means the date the building permit was issued; provided, the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement, or other improvement was within the one hundred eighty days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of roads and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundation or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure.

L. “Structure” means a walled and roofed building including a gas or liquid storage tank or manufactured home that is principally aboveground.

M. “Substantial damage” means damage of any origin, including intentional and unintentional demolition, sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure exceeds fifty percent of its value before damage as determined by using the most recent ICBO construction tables.

N. “Substantial Improvement” means:

1. Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the value of the structure, as determined by using the most recent ICBO construction tables, either:

a. Before the improvement or repair is started, or b. If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred.

For the purposes of this definition “substantial improvement” is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimension of the structure.

2. The term substantial improvement does not, however, include either:

http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/DouglasCounty/douglasco15/douglasco1548.html#15.48.050

43

a. Any project for the improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions; or

b. Any alteration of a structure listed on the national register of historic places or a state inventory of historic places.

6.030 General Provisions. A. Lands to Which This Chapter Applies. This chapter shall apply to all flood hazard areas within the

unincorporated areas of the county within shoreline jurisdiction. B. Basis for Establishing the Areas of Flood Hazard. The areas of flood hazard identified by the

federal insurance administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled “The Flood Insurance Study for the Unincorporated Areas” dated July 17, 1978, and as revised on May 17, 1982, with accompanying flood insurance rate maps is adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. The flood insurance study is on file at the offices of the Douglas County Department of Transportation and Land Services. Flood hazard areas also include those areas not designated in the flood insurance study but that have a historical pattern of flooding and mudslides. The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section 6.040(D)(2) of Appendix H shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued which incorporates the data utilized under that section.

C. Reference Datum. Certifications of the elevations of sites, structures and base flood levels shall use NAVD 1988 for the reference datum.

D. Compliance. No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the terms of this chapter and other applicable regulations.

E. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. This chapter is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions, however, where this chapter and another ordinance, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail.

F. Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of this chapter, all provisions shall be:

1. Considered as minimum requirements; 2. Liberally construed in favor of the board of commissioners and the review authority; and 3. Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other power.

G. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. The degree of flood protection required by this chapter is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by manmade or natural causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside the areas of flood hazard or uses permitted in such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part of the county, any officer or employee thereof, for

44

any flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter, any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder, or unauthorized actions by others.

6.040 Administration. A. Establishment of Development Permit. A development permit shall be obtained before

construction or development begins within any area of flood hazard established in Section 6.030(B) of Appendix H. The permit shall be for all buildings and structures including manufactured homes, as defined in Chapter 8 Definitions, of this Program and Section 6.020 of Appendix H, and for all other development, including fill and other activities, also defined in Chapter 8 Definitions, of this Program and Section 6.020 of Appendix H. Depending upon the nature of the development, the proposal may also require review and approval of shoreline permits as specified by this Program.

B. Application for Development Permit. Application for a development permit shall be made on forms furnished by the review authority. The information to be submitted with the application shall be submitted in addition to that information necessary to obtain other permits, as well as for those developments and substantial improvements which require no other permit approvals and may include, but not be limited to:

1. The nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the project site; 2. Typical cross sections disclosing both existing ground elevations, proposed ground

elevations, height of existing structures, and height of proposed structures; 3. Proposed land contours, where appropriate, if development involves grading, filling, cutting,

or other alterations of land contours. When required, contours shall be at 2-foot intervals for land with a slope of 10% or less and 5-foot intervals for land with a slope greater than 10%;

4. Dimensions and locations of existing structures to be maintained; 5. Dimensions and locations of proposed structures; 6. The source, composition, and volume of fill materials; 7. The composition and volume of any excavated materials and the identification of the

proposed disposal site; 8. The location of existing and proposed utilities such as water, sanitary sewer, storm water

drainage, septic tanks and drainfields, gas and electricity; 9. The elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all

structures as certified by an engineer, surveyor, or architect; 10. The elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been flood proofed as

certified by an engineer, surveyor, or architect; 11. Certification by an engineer or architect that the flood proofing methods for any

nonresidential structure meet the flood proofing criteria in Section 6.050(B)(2) of Appendix H; 12. Description of the extent to which any watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of

proposed development; and


http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/DouglasCounty/douglasco14/douglasco1498.html#14.98

http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/DouglasCounty/douglasco14/douglasco1498.html#14.98



45

13. Certification by an engineer demonstrating that any alteration or encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of a base flood discharge.

C. Designation of the Review Authority. The Administrator is appointed to implement this chapter by granting or denying development permit applications in accordance with its provisions.

D. Duties and Responsibilities of the Review Authority. Duties of the review authority shall include, but not be limited to:

1. Permit Review.

a. Review all development permits to determine the permit requirements of this chapter have been satisfied;

b. Refer development permit applications to federal, state, or local governmental agencies as appropriate in order for those agencies to determine applicability of their permit requirements to the development and enable them to contact the applicant directly regarding those requirements;

c. Review all development permits to determine if the proposed development is located in the floodway. If located in the floodway, assure that the encroachment provisions of Section 6.050(D)(1) of Appendix H are met.

2. Use of Other Base Flood Data. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Section 6.030(B) of Appendix H, the review authority may obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source, in order to administer Section 6.050(B) and (D) of Appendix H.

3. Information to be Obtained and Maintained.

a. Where base flood elevation data is provided through the flood insurance study or required as in Section 6.040(D)(2) of Appendix H, obtain and record the certifications of the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the base flood elevation and the lowest habitable floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement.

b. For all new or substantially improved flood proofed structures:

(1) Maintain the certifications of the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level); and (2) Maintain the flood proofing certifications required in section 6.040(B)(11) of

Appendix H.

4. Alteration of Watercourses.

a. Notify adjacent communities and the Washington State Department of Ecology prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the federal insurance administration; and

b. Require that maintenance be provided within the altered or relocated portion of the watercourse so that the flood-carrying capacity is not diminished.






46

5. Interpretation of FIRM Boundaries. Make interpretations where needed, as to exact location of the boundaries of the areas of flood hazard (for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions).

6.045 Variance Procedure. A. The Douglas County Hearing Examiner shall hear and decide requests for variances from the

requirements of this chapter and appeals of decisions made after full administrative review (Subsection 7.3.030 of Chapter 7 of this Program).

B. There shall be no administrative appeal of a decision of the hearing examiner. An appeal of a decision of the hearing examiner shall be timely filed as a judicial appeal in the superior court in accordance with Section 6.15 of this Program.

C. The hearing examiner shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of this chapter, and the following:

1. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; 2. The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; 3. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of

such damage on the individual owner; 4. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; 5. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; 6. The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use that are not subject to flooding

or erosion damage; 7. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; 8. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain

management program for that area; 9. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; 10. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood

waters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site; and 11. The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including

maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems, and streets and bridges.

D. Upon consideration of the factors of 6.045 C of Appendix H and the purposes of this chapter, the hearing examiner may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as deemed necessary to further the purposes of this chapter.

E. The review authority, or his/her designee, shall maintain the records of all appeal actions and report any variances to the Federal Insurance Administration upon request.

F. Criteria for variances:

1. Generally, the only condition under which a variance from the elevation standard may be issued is for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of one-

47

half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level, provided that items 1 through 11 in 6.045 C of Appendix H have been fully considered. As the lot size increases the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases.

2. Variances may be issued for the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or restoration of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places, without regard to the procedures set forth in this section.

3. Variances shall not be issued within a designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.

4. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.

5. Variances shall only be issued upon:

a. A showing of good and sufficient cause; b. A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to

the applicant; c. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights,

additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public as identified in Section 6.045 C of Appendix H or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.

6. Variances as interpreted in the National Flood Insurance Program are based on the general zoning law principle that they pertain to a physical piece or property; they are not personal in nature and do not pertain to the structure, its inhabitants, economic or financial circumstances. They primarily address small lots in densely populated residential neighborhoods. As such, variances from the flood elevations should be quite rare.

7. Variances may be issued for nonresidential buildings in very limited circumstances to allow a lesser degree of flood proofing than watertight or dry-flood proofing, where it can be determined that such action will have low damage potential, complies with all other variance criteria except Section 6.045 F.1. of Appendix H, and otherwise complies with Section 6.050 A.1 of Appendix H (anchoring) and Section 6.050 A.2 of Appendix H (construction materials and methods).

8. Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the structure will be permitted to be built with a lowest floor elevation below the base flood elevation and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor elevation.

6.050 Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction. A. General Standards. In all areas of flood hazard the following standards are required:

1. Anchoring.






48

a. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure.

b. All manufactured homes must likewise be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement, and shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors (reference FEMA’s “Manufactured Home Installation in Flood Hazard Areas” guidebook for additional techniques).

2. Construction Materials and Methods.

a. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage.

b. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage.

c. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding.

3. Utilities.

a. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system;

b. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharge from the systems into floodwaters; and

c. On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding.

4. Subdivisions, short subdivisions, and binding site plans.

a. All subdivisions, short subdivisions and binding site plans shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage;

b. All subdivisions, short subdivisions and binding site plans shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage;

c. All subdivisions, short subdivisions and binding site plans shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage;

d. The base flood elevation shall be disclosed on the face of a final plat, final short plat or final binding site plan in a manner specified by the review authority. Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated by the applicant for a subdivision, short subdivision, binding site plan or other proposed development; and

49

e. A disclosure statement shall be placed on the face of final plats, final short plats and final binding site plans advising property owners and potential purchasers of the potential flood hazard on the property, and that certain activities are subject to compliance with this chapter and other applicable provisions of this Program.

5. Review of Building Permits. Where elevation data is not available, either through the flood insurance study or from another authoritative source (see Section 6.040(D)(2) of Appendix H), applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes certification by an engineer and use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc., where available. Failure to elevate at least two feet above grade in these zones may result in higher insurance rates.

B. Specific Standards. In all areas of flood hazard where base flood elevation data has been provided as set forth in Section 6.030(B) of Appendix H or Section 6.040(D)(2) of Appendix H, the following provisions are required:

1. Residential Construction.

a. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above one foot higher than the base flood elevation.

b. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must be certified by an engineer or architect and must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria:

(1) A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided;

(2) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; (3) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices,

provided, that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters.

2. Nonresidential Construction. New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above one foot higher than the base flood elevation; or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall:

a. Be flood proofed so that below one foot above the base flood elevation the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water;

b. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; and




50

c. Be certified by an engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of this subsection based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications, and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to the review authority;

d. Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not flood proofed, must meet the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described in Section 6.050(B)(1)(b) of Appendix H.

e. Applicants that are flood proofing nonresidential buildings shall be notified that flood insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the flood proofed level (e.g. a building flood proofed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot below).

3. Manufactured Homes. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within Flood Zones A1-30, AH, and AE shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated to or above one foot higher than the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately designed foundation system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.050(A)(1)(b) of Appendix H.

C. Recreational Vehicles. Recreational vehicles placed on sites within Flood Zones A, A1-30, and AE shall be on the site for fewer than one hundred eighty consecutive days unless parked at an occupied single family residence, be fully licensed and ready for highway use, is on its wheels or a jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utility and security systems, and has no permanently attached additions.

D. Floodways. Located within areas of flood hazard established in Section 6.030(B) of Appendix H are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters, which carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion potential, the following provisions apply:

1. Encroachments and obstructions, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other uses are prohibited unless certification by an engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge;

2. If subdivision 1 of this subsection D is satisfied, all new nonresidential construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of this chapter.

3. Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways except for repairs or improvements to a structure which do not increase the ground floor areas, the value of which in any 12-month period does not exceed fifty percent of the value of the structure, as determined by using the current ICBO construction tables either:

a. Before the repair or improvement is started, or




51

b. If the structure has been damaged by any means or demolished to any extent, and is being restored, before damage occurred.

Not included in the fifty percent value standard are repairs or improvements to buildings and structures to comply with existing health, sanitary, or safety codes that have been identified by the review authority and that are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions or repairs or improvements to buildings or structures identified as historic places.

E. Grading and Filling. No fill, including fill for roads, and levees, grading; or excavating that unduly affects the efficiency or the capacity of the flood channel or floodway, or unduly decreases flood storage or increases flood heights, shall be permitted. Any proposed fill to be deposited in a flood hazard area shall not be contrary to the need for storage of floodwater nor shall the amount of fill be greater than is necessary to achieve the purpose for which the fill is intended. Fill materials shall be clean with a minimal potential for degrading water quality. All fill materials shall be protected against erosion with retaining walls or other mechanisms to deter erosion. If vegetative cover is chosen, the side slopes of the fill should not exceed two units of horizontal distance to one unit of vertical distance. All grading and fill activities shall be designed and certified by an engineer to conform to all applicable provisions of this Program.

F. Shallow Flood Areas (AO Zones) with Depth Designations.

1. Shallow flooding areas appear on the FIRM as AO zones with depth designations. The base flood depth in these zones range from one to three feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist, or where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is usually characterized as sheet flow. In these areas, the following provisions apply:

a. New construction and substantial improvements of residential structures within AO zones shall have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest grade adjacent to the building, one foot or more above the depth number specified on the FIRM, and at least two feet if no depth number is specified.

b. New construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures within AO zones shall either:

(1) Have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest grade adjacent to the building site, to or above the depth number specified on the FIRM and at least two feet if no depth number is specified; or

(2) Together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be completely flood proofed to or above that level so that any space below that level is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. An engineer or architect shall certify compliance as in Section 6.050(B)(2)(c) of Appendix H if this method is used;


52

c. Adequate drainage paths designed by an engineer shall be required around structures on slopes to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures.

d. Recreational vehicles placed on sites within an AO zone must either:

(1) Be on the site for fewer than one hundred eighty consecutive days, or (2) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on its wheels or jacking system, is

attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and has no permanently attached additions; or

(3) Meet the requirements of Section 6.050 F of Appendix H and the elevation and anchoring requirements for manufactured homes.

2. Where hazardous velocities are noted on the FIRM, consideration shall be given to mitigating the effects of these velocities through proper design and construction techniques and methods.

G. Encroachments. The cumulative effort of any proposed development, where combined with all other existing and anticipated development, shall not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point as certified by an engineer.

6.060 Critical Facilities. Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits of a flood hazard area. Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within a flood hazard area if no alternative feasible site is available. Critical facilities constructed within a flood hazard area shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet or more above the level of the base flood at the site. Flood proofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the base flood elevation shall be provided to all critical facilities to the extent possible. The review authority shall require design and construction certifications prepared by an engineer, architect, or surveyor, as appropriate to the aspect of the development, to assure compliance with this section and other applicable provisions of this Program.
